(An Analysis Through the Case of Prem Prakash v. UOI Through ED, Special Criminal Appeal 5416/2024)
- Varun K. Chopra
A pillar of Indian criminal jurisprudence is Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which upholds the right against self-incrimination. It states that “No person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This clause is based on the more general idea that the prosecution has the burden of establishing guilt, and is an essential protection for individual freedom. The adversarial system of justice, which maintains that a person is innocent until and unless proven guilty, is embodied in Article 20(3), which prohibits coercion of the accused to support their own conviction.
One of the cornerstones of the Indian judicial system, representing the fairness and justice tenets of the Constitution, is the protection against self-incrimination. It guarantees that no one may be forced to say something that could be used against them in court and that everyone has the right to remain silent. Anyone who is charged with a crime can take use of this protection, which guarantees the highest level of justice during their trial.
This privilege has its roots in English common law, which throughout the colonial era greatly impacted Indian legal doctrines. The prohibition on self-incrimination was put in place to stop the government from using coercive measures, including torture, to force confessions. The Indian Constitution’s founders aimed to create a legal system that respects individual liberty and places restrictions on the state’s power in criminal prosecutions by including this right in the document.
Part of the larger Article 20, which offers safeguards against disproportionate and capricious penalties, is Article 20(3). These clauses serve as a vital cornerstone for the defence of human rights in India’s criminal justice system, together with Article 21’s assurances of the right to life and personal liberty and Article 22’s protection against arrest and imprisonment in specific situations.
Not only a formality, the right against self-incrimination is a reflection of the basic principles of autonomy and dignity that the Indian Constitution aims to uphold. Article 20(3) maintains the notion that justice must be done and seen to be done, free from any kind of compulsion or undue influence, by guaranteeing that people cannot be forced to testify against themselves.
This privilege is especially important in modern legal practice when it comes to regulations like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), as there is a genuine risk that investigating agencies may abuse their authority. The Supreme Court’s ongoing interpretation of Article 20(3) guarantees that the accused’s rights are protected against any kind of governmental overreach while still being strong and applicable.
Article 20(3) is now widely in discussion owing to the fact that the recent ruling of Prem Prakash v, Union of India through Enforcement Directorate judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justices B. R. Gavai & K. Vishwanathan[1] where it has examined and observed that n case can be made out of the statements made by the accused to the ED authorities.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 20(3) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
In case Nandini Satpathey v. P.L. Dani[2] it was held that, the right extends to witness and accused alike. Further, in case Narayan Lal V. Maneek S. Mistry[3], it must appear that a formal accusation have been made not in favor of the party insistent the assurance and that it relates to the commission of offence which in the normal course result in persecution. Moreover, M.P. Sharma V. Satish[4], the apex court observed that as point out that there is no grounds to believe that the protection of Article 20(3) is ‘’to be a witness and not to appear as a witness.’’
In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat[5], once again, the apex court has held that meagre issue of a notice of contempt of court to a person for the pendency of contempt of court proceeding against him does not attract Article 20(3).
In the instant matter of Prem Prakash, where the case was made out of the statements confessed by the accused to the ED, the apex court has summarily rejected the same on the ground that it is violative of Article 20(3) of the Indian constitution.
THE RULING AS A PROTECTOR OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
In the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India disregarded the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) reliance on statements the accused had provided, reinforcing its position as the protector of fundamental rights. The top court dismissed the prosecution’s use of these confessions, highlighting that doing so would violate Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which shields people from being forced to testify against their will.
No one who is suspected of a crime may be forced to testify against themself, according to Article 20(3). This right supports the idea that the prosecution has the burden of proof and is a vital defence against the abuse of governmental authority. In this instance, the Supreme Court decided that any statement obtained by the ED under coercion or pressure may not be utilised against the accused in court.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to protecting constitutional rights by swiftly rejecting these confessions’ admission, especially in light of strict provisions like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The ruling emphasises the judiciary’s duty to safeguard individual freedoms by making sure that investigating organisations don’t go too far and infringe on the rights of those who are charged.
This decision is important for preserving the delicate balance that exists between the state’s investigative authority over criminal activity and the defence of individual rights, especially in the case of legislation like the PMLA that have a high potential for coercion. The Supreme Court’s ruling is an important reminder that even in the face of grave criminal accusations, the basic liberties guaranteed by the Constitution must be upheld.
CONCLUSION
The fundamental tenet of Indian criminal jurisprudence—that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception”—reflectes the constitution’s dedication to upholding individual liberty. The PMLA’s strict bail requirements, however, pose a serious obstacle to this idea. The Supreme Court’s recent rulings highlight the necessity of a fair strategy that upholds the accused’s fundamental rights as well as the PMLA’s legislative framework.
The recent ruling by the Supreme Court that an individual cannot be used as evidence against them in court based only on comments they made to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a major and positive development for the protection of individual rights. This ruling is consistent with the Indian Constitution’s Article 20(3) protections, which state that no one accused of a crime may be forced to testify against himself. The Supreme Court guarantees the protection of the accused’s basic rights even in the face of strict legislation such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by upholding this concept.
This decision is significant because it addresses the disparity in power between people and state authorities, especially when the possibility of extended incarceration is present. It emphasises the judiciary’s responsibility to protect constitutional rights and make sure that the principles of justice are not compromised in the battle against financial crimes. In addition to shielding the accused from forced self-incrimination, the ruling upholds the more general idea that the rule of law must be upheld and that people’s rights must always be protected.
[1] SLP (Crl) No. 5416/2024
[2] AIR 1978 SC 1025
[3] AIR 1961 SC 29
[4] AIR 1954 SC 300
[5] AIR 1988 SC 1214
