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?
पर्याय
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
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favor, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
Which of the following is the main point of the author in the given passage?
Mark the best option:
From which country's Constitution the Distribution of Power between Union and the State have been borrowed?
Which Act enabled the Governor-General to associate representatives of the Indian People with the work of legislation by nominating them to his expanded council?
Who of the following was the first Governor-General of the new Dominion of India?
The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011 added a new part to the Constitution. Which of the following is that part?
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): The first linguistic state known as Andhra State was formed by separating the Telugu speaking areas from the Madras State.
Reason (R): A prolonged agitation and death of Potti Sriramulu after a 56-day hunger strike for the cause.
By which of the following amendment Article 43A has been added to the Directive Principle of State Policy?
Who was the President of India at the time of the proclamation of emergency in the year of 1975?
The National Commission of Scheduled Caste has been established under the
Which of the following has not been a woman judge of the Supreme Court of India, till 2009?
