Article 20(3) of the COI

« »

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu v. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau has held that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) remains unchanged by the provisions of search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

In this case, Smt. Najmunisha (Accused No. 01) was originally convicted under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court had sentenced her to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 30, 000.
This sentence was subsequently modified by the High Court of Gujarat while partly allowing her appeal to the effect that her fine was enhanced to the minimum prescribed fine of INR 1,00,000/ reduced the sentence in default of paying the fine from simple imprisonment of one year to simple imprisonment of three months.
Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu (Accused No. 04) is the husband of Accused No. 01 who was convicted under the provisions of the NDPS Act 1985 and sentenced to thirteen years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100,000. The same was affirmed by the High Court ofGujarat while also dismissing his appeal.
The instant criminal appeals have been filed before the Supreme Court assailing the common impugned judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in criminal appeals moved by the Original Accused No. 01 and Accused No. 04.
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court.

A bench comprising of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih observed that in the instant case, we are primarily affected by virtue of the jurisprudence of the NDPS Act 1985, which begins from the power of search and seizure conferred by the State upon its executive or administrative arms for the protection of social security in any civilized nation.
It was further stated that such power is inherently limited by the recognition of fundamental rights by the Constitution as well as statutory limitations. At the same time, it is not legitimate to assume that Article 20(3) of the COI would be affected by the provisions of search and seizure. Thus, such a power cannot be considered as a violation of any fundamental rights of the person concerned.

About:

Article 20 deals with protection in respect of conviction for offences.
Article 20(3) affirms that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
The right conferred by this article is a right which gives a privilege to an accused to remain silent during a trial or investigation whereas the State has no claim on the confession made by him.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court stated that the process of justice must be fair and on equitable grounds.
In the case of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) of the COI enjoys an exalted status. This provision is an essential safeguard in criminal procedure and is also meant to be a vital safeguard against torture and other coercive methods used by investigating authorities.