Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
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.
Advertisements
उत्तर
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.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Mark the best option:
Which Article defines Equality before law and equal protection of law?
Which of the following countries have no right to acquire the Overseas Citizen of India by the persons of Indian origin?
Which of the following have no guaranteed right to effective bargaining or right to strike?
In which of the following case the Supreme Court has taken a narrow interpretation of Article 21?
Parliament or a State Legislature in India can declare a seat vacant, if a member absents himself without notice from the session for more than
Parliament of India consists of
The 39th Constitutional Amendment laid that election of any person to Lok Sabha holding the office of Prime Minister cannot be challenged before a Court of Law, but only before an authority established by Parliament. This was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in
In the question given below are two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). In the context of the two statements, which of the following is correct?
Assertion (A): CAG is the guardian of public purse in India.
Reason (R): In a democracy, the doctrine of check and balance is necessary to maintain a just society.
Central Vigilance Commissioner shall hold office for a term of ___________ years from the date on which he enters upon his office.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Factual Situation: In order to ensure that people live in an amicable atmosphere the Government of India decided to abolish courts and constituted Dispute Settlement Boards. Further to achieve this objective, the law stipulated that lawyers should not be allowed to espouse the claims of parties, and instead their claims be espoused by social workers.
Legal Principles:
I. Any law made by the Parliament that infringes the fundamental rights of the citizens is invalid and unenforceable.
II. Freedom to carry on trade or profession of one’s own choice is a fundamental right.
III. The Parliament is competent to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right.
IV. If the restrictions, on fundamental rights imposed by the Parliament, totally removes or nullifies any fundamental right then it will be construed as an unreasonable restriction. Decision:
