Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani

Facts

• Nandini Satpathy (former Chief Minister of Orissa) was accused of corruption
• During investigation, she was served a questionnaire requiring answers to over 100 questions
• She refused to answer, claiming Art.20(3) privilege against self-incrimination
• Prosecution argued Art.20(3) applied only during trial, not during investigation

Issues

1. Whether the privilege against self-incrimination under Art.20(3) extends to the investigation stage.
2. Whether a person can refuse to answer police questions during interrogation.

Held

• Art.20(3) protection operates during police interrogation, not just at trial
• A person is an "accused" from the moment they are formally accused or when a case is registered against them
• Under S.161 CrPC (now S.180 BNSS), a person is bound to answer truthfully except questions tending to self-incrimination
• The right to silence during interrogation is part of Art.20(3)
• Compulsion to answer incriminating questions during investigation violates Art.20(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Art.20(3) is a constitutional shield available from the earliest stage of accusation. If it applied only at trial, the police could extract confessions during investigation and use them to build the prosecution case, rendering the trial-stage protection meaningless. The protection must apply at the point where compulsion is first applied.