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?
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: B.
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_
Related questions
In National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, the SuprThe Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 — providing 10 per cent reservation for EconoArticle 131 of the Constitution confers on the Supreme Court of India:Which case overruled the proposition in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 tArticles 280 (Finance Commission) and 281 (recommendations of the Finance Commission) beloThe Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution lists subjects that may be devolved by State LegArticles 243 to 243-O of the Constitution, inserted by the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992, deal The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provides for the administration of tribal areas in