The Supreme Court (SC) recently rejected a bail appeal by the Deputy CM of Delhi in the excise policy case. The Deputy CM had submitted his appeal directly to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, rather than initially seeking remedy in the High Court via Section 482 of the CrPC. This has reignited discussions around Articles 32 and 20, fundamental rights, and an individual’s Right against self-incrimination.
Article 32 and Its Scope
Article 32 of the Constitution endows citizens with the right to approach the SC for remedies if their fundamental rights are infringed upon. It is a basic feature of the Constitution, with its jurisdiction being original but not exclusive. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court coincides with that of the high court under Article 226. Non-fundamental rights, however, can only be entertained by the high court under Article 226. And while Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, an alternative remedy is not a barrier to relief under this article. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has stipulated that if relief via the high court is available under Article 226, the aggrieved party should first turn to the high court.
Understanding Article 20 and Its Provisions
Article 20 of the Constitution ensures protection from arbitrary and disproportionate punishment for anyone accused, regardless of whether they are a citizen, foreigner, or a legal entity such as a corporation. The article comprises three critical provisions: No ex-post-facto law, No double jeopardy, and No self-incrimination.
No ex-post-facto law indicates that an individual can only be convicted for violating a law that was in force at the time of the offense. However, this restriction applies solely to criminal laws and not civil or tax laws.
No double jeopardy protection means that an individual cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.
The provision of No self-incrimination ensures that an accused person cannot be forced to give evidence against themselves. This protection extends to both verbal and documentary evidence. However, this does not include the mandatory production of material objects or physical evidence like thumb impressions, specimen signatures, blood samples, or compulsory display of the body.
The Right Against Self-Incrimination
The protection against self-incrimination is only applicable to criminal proceedings and not civil proceedings or non-criminal natured proceedings. The Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in 2019, in the case of Ritesh Sinha vs State of Uttar Pradesh, expanding the definition of handwriting samples to include voice samples as well, stating that this would not be a violation of the right against self-incrimination.
Previously in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the Selvi v State of Karnataka case that conducting a narco-analysis test without the accused’s consent would infringe upon this right. However, obtaining a DNA sample from the accused does not violate this right.
Recent Developments and Judicial Rulings
In relation to the recently denied bail plea of the Deputy CM of Delhi, the Supreme Court argued that even though petitions have previously been entertained directly under Article 32, those cases typically involve free speech issues. Conversely, this case was under the Prevention of Corruption act. The Special CBI Judge had allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) custody of the Deputy CM because he ‘failed to provide satisfactory answers.’ This decision was upheld despite arguments around violation of his right against self-incrimination.
