General Studies Paper 2

• Context: The Supreme Court refused to hear a bail plea by the Deputy CM of Delhi in the excise policy case, as he had approached the court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution instead of first seeking remedy in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
• SC argued that though in previous cases petitions were entertained directly under Article 32,t those cases involved free speech issues while this case is about Prevention of Corruption act.

What is the Background?

• Previously, Special CBI Judge had granted  Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) custody of Deputy CM on the ground that he ‘failed to provide satisfactory answers.’
  • The court had rejected the argument that it was a violation of right against self-incrimination.

What is an Individual’s Right against Self-incrimination?

• Constitutional Provisions:
• Article 20grants protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment to an accused person, whether citizen or foreigner or legal person like a company or a corporation. It contains three provisions in that direction:
• It contains provisions related to No ex-post-facto law, No double jeopardy, No self-incrimination.
• No self-incrimination: No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
• The protection against self-incrimination extends to both oral evidence and documentary evidence.
• However, it does not extend to
  • compulsory production of material objects,
  • compulsion to give thumb impression, specimen signature, blood specimens, and
  • compulsory exhibition of the body.
  • Further, it extends only to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings or proceedings which are not of criminal nature.