What does law say about kejriwal not disclosing password?


The supreme Court's panel of Justices surya Kant and Dipankar Dutta declared in june 2023 that "cooperation" in the probe could not equate to "confession." For this reason, the investigating agency is unable to prove anything against the accused only because they have chosen to keep quiet. Hearing a criminal case from Uttar Pradesh, the bench questioned, "Why can't he (the accused) choose to remain silent? Cooperation cannot mean confession." How can the right to silence, guaranteed by the Constitution, be used as justification for not cooperating? The indian Constitution's Article 20(3), which declares that you cannot be made to testify against oneself, also upholds the right to silence. The accused is granted the fundamental legal principle of not being able to incriminate oneself by virtue of this rule.

The Constitution's Article 20(3)

Article 20(3) guarantees that no individual facing criminal charges can be forced to testify against themselves. This implies that no one may be forced to provide testimony or evidence that might implicate herself. Individuals are shielded from being forced to testify as witnesses in their own criminal cases by this fundamental right. When the cbi placed former Finance minister P chidambaram in custody for four days in 2019, the media brought up Article 20(3). 

Chidambaram was previously accused by the cbi of not assisting with the case's investigation. During the cbi investigation, chidambaram is withholding information and remaining silent. The "Right to Silence" was the most discussed topic even after his arrest. What exactly is the "Right to Silence," and can P chidambaram use this legally? How would the cbi probe P chidambaram if he uses the "Right to Silence" to keep quiet? After a contentious media debate over all of these issues, Article 20(3)—which grants every indian citizen the basic right to remain silent against oneself—was brought up.



మరింత సమాచారం తెలుసుకోండి: