Accused has right to be silent during interrogation: judge

CategoryPolity

Last Updated16/09/2024

Probe agencies cannot presume guilt or make an adverse inference against an accused who chooses to keep mum, says Justice Bhuyan

On September 13, 2024, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in his separate opinion while granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, reaffirmed the right of an accused to remain silent during interrogation.
In a two-judge Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, Justice Bhuyan stressed that an investigating agency cannot assume guilt or draw adverse inferences from an accused choosing to stay silent.

Right to Silence: Justice Bhuyan reiterated that an accused cannot be forced to make self-incriminating statements. The right to silence is a crucial aspect of criminal jurisprudence.
No Adverse Inference: He emphasized that silence from the accused cannot be used against them to assume guilt.
Article 20(3) of the Constitution: The right to remain silent stems from Article 20(3), which protects individuals from being forced to testify against themselves.

The Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, allowing him to walk free in a case related to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed charges against Kejriwal, and he had previously received interim bail in a related money laundering case from the Enforcement Directorate (ED). This decision is seen as a significant victory for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).

Justice Bhuyan further elaborated on the constitutional protection under Article 20(3), which safeguards an accused from being compelled to testify against themselves, not only in court but also during pre-trial stages such as interrogations.
He highlighted that this protection applies even if the formal trial has not commenced, ensuring that an accused retains the right to remain silent throughout the investigative process.