Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice N.S Shekhawat held that a company cannot invoke Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India,1950 (COI) to refuse to produce summoned documents unless it satisfies the provision's conditions. Article 20(3) protects individuals from self-incrimination when accused of an offense under compulsion.  

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court held this in the case of LSE Securities Ltd v. Jaswinder Singh Kapoor (2025). 
• The court clarified that this protection applies only when there is an accusation, compulsion, and self-incriminating evidence. 

What was the Background of LSE Securities Ltd v. Jaswinder Singh Kapoor Case? 

• LSE Securities Ltd, incorporated on 07th January 2000 and registered with the Registrar of Companies, is a subsidiary of Ludhiana Stock Exchange Limited engaged in stock broking business. 
• During the company's AGM held on 15th January 2012, K.K. Puri and Naresh Sareen were appointed as Directors through majority voting. 
• Subsequently, on 25th January 2013, Jaswinder Singh Kapoor filed a complaint against LSE Securities, K.K. Puri, Naresh Sareen, and other company officers. 
• The complaint alleged that Jaspal Singh and Sanjay Anand, in connivance with co-accused, had forged signatures of various members to obtain proxies and vote in favor of K.K. Puri and Naresh Sareen. 
• The complainant filed an application seeking summons for the concerned clerk of LSE Securities Limited to produce records including proxies, resolutions, voter lists, and polling records from the election. 
• On 27th February 2013, the trial Court allowed the application for summoning the clerk along with the requested records. 
• The petitioner/accused filed an application claiming privilege over the records, arguing they were confidential in nature. 
• After the trial Court dismissed their privilege claim on 13th September 2013, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. 
• The Sessions Court declined to exercise revisional powers, ruling the trial Court's order was interlocutory in nature. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that the summoned records were of a sensitive nature, containing signatures of company members holding substantial bank deposits. 
• The Court noted that the trial Court had only directed the clerk concerned, who was not an accused, to appear as a witness with the relevant election records. 
• The Court observed that Article 20(3) protection against self-incrimination applies only when three conditions are met:  
  • Accusation of an offense 
  • Compulsion to provide evidence 
  • Self-incriminating material relating to accusations 
• The Court observed that none of the accused were compelled to produce documents or make incriminating statements - only the record keeper was required to produce documents. 
• The Court determined that privilege can only be claimed where State interest is involved or there is a threat to national security, which was not applicable in this case. 
• The Court concluded that the documents requested were necessary to throw light on the controversy and aid the trial Court in adjudicating the issues involved in the complaint. 
• The Court found that the trial Court and Additional Sessions Judge's orders were based on correct appreciation of facts and law. 

What is Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India? 

• Article 20(3) embodies the fundamental principle that an accused person cannot be compelled to give testimony or produce evidence that could potentially incriminate them, protecting against forced self-incrimination during criminal proceedings. 
• For Article 20(3) protection to apply, three essential conditions must be met simultaneously:  
  • (i) The person must be accused of an offense. 
  • (ii) There must be an element of compulsion to provide evidence. 
  • (iii) Such evidence must be of a self-incriminatory nature relating to the accusations against them. 
• As clarified by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu (1961), mere mechanical production of documents that may shed light on the controversy does not amount to self-incrimination unless they contain personal knowledge or statements of the accused - thus distinguishing between testimonial and non-testimonial evidence under Article 20(3)'s protection. 
• It works on the legal maxim nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum – It states that a man cannot be compelled to state any self-incriminating statement. 

Can Companies Claim Protection Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution? 

• Scope and Basic Protection: 
  • Article 20(3) provides fundamental protection against self-incrimination to both individuals and companies accused of offenses. 
  • The protection extends to persons and entities from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves in criminal proceedings. 
• Essential Requirements: 
  • For Article 20(3) to apply to companies, three conditions must be met:  
    • The company must be formally accused of an offense. 
    • There must be a compulsion to provide evidence. 
    • The evidence must be self-incriminatory in nature. 
• Documentary Evidence: 
  • Mere mechanical production of business documents or records by a company does not amount to self-incrimination. 
  • Only documents containing personal knowledge or testimonial statements from company officials that could incriminate the company fall under Article 20(3)'s protection. 
• Employee Protection: 
  • Company employees who are not accused cannot claim Article 20(3) protection when asked to produce company documents. 
  • Record keepers or clerks of the company can be compelled to produce documents as they are not personally accused. 
• Limitations: 
  • Companies cannot claim privilege over routine business records or documents that don't contain incriminating personal knowledge. 
  • The protection does not extend to documents that merely throw light on points of controversy but don't contain self-incriminatory statements. 
• Compulsion Aspect: 
  • The protection applies only against compelled testimony or evidence. 
  • Voluntary production of documents or statements by company officials is not protected under Article 20(3).