Article 20(3) protects the accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself. Which act is OUTSIDE this protective ambit per the Supreme Court?

1. In Kathi Kalu Oghad, an eleven-Judge Bench held that compulsion to give specimen handwriting, fingerprints or signatures is NOT 'being a witness' within Article 20(3), because it does not convey personal knowledge. 2. By contrast, in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Court held narco-analysis, polygraph and BEAP tests without consent violate Article 20(3) and 21. 3. Confessions through coercion and compelled testimony are clearly hit by Article 20(3). 4. Hence the production of physical specimens is the correct exception. _Source: Constitution of India (Bare Act, updated to 105th Amendment Act 2021), Govt. of India Legislative Dept., State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808; Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263_