Question

Legal Principle: Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India states that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Fact Situation: Ubaid refuses to give a sample of his blood after he is stopped by the police for driving over the speed limit. The police suspect him to be driving under the influence of alcohol, which is prohibited under the law.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

विकल्प

• Ubaid is protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample.

• Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) as he was under the influence of alcohol.

• Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample since he is not accused of any offence yet.

• Refusal to give a blood sample is a crime and Ubaid must be punished for the same.

Answer 1

Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample since he is not accused of any offense yet.

Explanation:

Central Government Act Article 20(3) in The  Constitution of India 1949 states that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a  witness against himself. The above stated legal  statement consists of the following three components:   
1. It is a right pertaining to a person accused of an offense  
2. It is a protection against compulsion to be a  witness; and   
3. It is a protection against such compulsion resulting in his giving evidence against himself.  However, in the case presented before us first point  itself is not fulfilled as Ubaid till now is just a suspect and not an accused. So this right under section20(3)  cannot be exercised by him. Hence "Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample since he is not accused of any offense yet" is most  appropriate.