nandini satpathy v p l dani Case Facts
- The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack, booked the former Chief Minister of Orissa under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) and (e) of the prevention of corruption act 1988 coupled with Sections 161, 165, 120B, and 109 of the IPC.
- Based on a written set of questions, the appellant and other parties engaged in the disproportionate asset case were questioned. A person is said to have disproportionate assets if their entire annual legal income exceeds that amount.
- She is accused of abusing her political position to obtain illicit pleasure, which has increased her riches, and of misusing her position as Chief Minister.
- But while her questioning was going on, she asserted her fundamental right under Article 20(3), which is the prohibition against self-incrimination, often known as the right to be silent, which prohibits being charged with a crime.
- Once more as a result of this act, she was summoned and charged under Section 179 of the IPC before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in Sadar, Cuttack. This was in response to a complaint made by the DSP, Vigilance, Cuttack.
- In response, the accused filed a case in the High Court using Section 141 of the CrPC and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to contest the validity of the judicial magistrate’s authority.
- However, the appellant’s plea was denied because the High Court did not address the scope of section 161(2) of the CrPC in the event that an accused person imposes Article 20(3) during a police interview. And after getting a certificate, she filed an appeal with the Supreme Court under Article 132(1).
nandini satpathy v p l dani Issues
- The scope of section 161 2 of the criminal procedure code and article 20 3 of the indian constitution were the main issues to be decided in this case.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- An accused person is excluded under the term of “any person” in Section 161(1).
- The appellant is the subject of multiple filed and ongoing proceedings, so any inquiries that form links in the prosecution’s case, including those that are essentially irrelevant, may subject the defendant to criminal accusations or charges.
- The right to self-incrimination protects the accused from divulging any information that he could consider to be detrimental.
Respondent:
- The respondent side’s skilled attorney contended that ” article 20 3 of the indian constitution” and ” section 161 2 of the criminal procedure code” cannot be used simultaneously when a suspect is being questioned by the police and that ” article 20 3 of the indian constitution” can only be used in that situation.
nandini satpathy v p l dani Judgment
- The Court held that calling a woman a witness in the police station violates Section 160 (1) as well as influences her testimony and that Section 161 (2) and Article 20 (3) protect the witness from being forced to answer incriminating questions during the investigation stage.
- The party pleading must be accused of an offense in order to invoke Article 20 (3), and the party must have been subjected to a compulsion to answer the incriminating questions asked of them.
- This immunity was extended to the investigative stage even under the Miranda standards.
- Thus, the appellant was instructed to respond to any pertinent inquiries that do not require self-incrimination. As a result, the prosecution’s case was dropped.
The Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani landmark ruling had a significant impact on Indian jurisprudence and democracy. In accordance with Article 20(3) of the Constitution, it upheld the basic right against self-incrimination and imposed reasonable limitations on the police’s ability to question suspects.
Despite the passage of time, the Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani case is still pertinent to discussions about how to strike a balance between individual rights and police power. Today, there are still many problems with forced confessions, torture in prison, and the abuse of sedition laws. The case’s decision established a benchmark for preserving civil liberties even when doing so is necessary for national security. Modern jurisprudence is guided by its interpretation of the right to silence and the prohibitions on self-incrimination. The judiciary will be motivated by this case to defend individual liberties from any totalitarian inclinations.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
