Supreme Court Upholds Right Against Self-Incrimination During Police Interrogation, Quashes Prosecution Against Former Odisha CM Nandini Satpathy

Landmark Judgment Clarifies Scope of Article 20(3) and Section 161(2) CrPC, Strengthens Protection of Accused’s Right to Silence and Limits Police Powers During Investigation

In a landmark judgment dated April 7, 1978, the Supreme Court of India decisively interpreted Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), affirming the fundamental right of an accused to be protected from self-incrimination during police interrogation. The case arose from a prosecution initiated against Smt. Nandini Satpathy, the former Chief Minister of Odisha, under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for allegedly refusing to answer police interrogations in connection with a vigilance investigation relating to disproportionate assets and corruption.

The Court, comprising Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, Jaswant Singh, and V.D. Tulzapurkar, emphasized the constitutional guarantee that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. The judgment acknowledges the delicate balance between society’s interest in effective law enforcement and the individual’s right to dignity and fairness.

The Court held that the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) extends beyond the courtroom to the police investigation stage, thereby encompassing custodial interrogation and questioning by law enforcement. It also clarified that the immunity protects answers that have a reasonable tendency to expose the accused to criminal charges not only in the case under investigation but also in other pending or imminent prosecutions. However, answers which do not have a clear tendency to incriminate must be given, as the accused is bound to answer all non-incriminatory questions.

Significantly, the Court interpreted “compulsion” broadly to include not only physical coercion but also psychological pressure, mental torture, and intimidating interrogation tactics which could force an accused to provide incriminating testimony involuntarily. The Court warned against “third degree” methods and urged police forces to adopt humane and scientific investigation techniques, underscoring the need for specialized training and legal awareness among police personnel.

The judgment explicitly states that the scope of Section 161(2) CrPC, which provides immunity to accused persons from answering self-incriminatory questions during police examination, includes accused persons and suspects alike. The Court rejected the narrow interpretation that the right applies only during trial, holding that the accused’s right to silence is equally vital during police questioning.

Further, the Court condemned police officers for insisting that a woman accused appear at the police station in violation of the proviso to Section 160(1) CrPC, and called for disciplinary action in such cases. It also highlighted the importance of the accused’s right to consult a legal practitioner of their choice during interrogation, recommending that police allow lawyers’ presence to ensure awareness and observance of the right to silence.

In the present case, the Court quashed the prosecution under Section 179 IPC against Nandini Satpathy, noting that the prosecution was premature and that many of the police questions were self-incriminatory, thus violating constitutional protections. The Court directed the appellant to furnish a written undertaking to answer all relevant non-self-incriminatory questions, while allowing her to claim immunity for questions that may expose her to criminal charges in other investigations without disclosing details.

The ruling lays down a comprehensive framework for police interrogation and the protection of accused persons’ rights, emphasizing that the right to silence is a vital shield against abuse of power and torture in custodial settings. It calls for a cultural and organizational transformation in police investigation methods to uphold constitutional values and human dignity.

This judgment stands as a cornerstone in Indian criminal jurisprudence, strengthening the safeguards against compelled self-incrimination and ensuring the fair treatment of accused persons during the critical investigative phase.

Statutory provisions

Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 160(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 114771