IV. Right against Self-Incrimination Nandini Satpathy V P. L Dani Air 1978 SC 1025 A. Background Nandini Satpathy - former Chief Minister of Orissa - against whom a case had been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was asked to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of Police [Vigilance] for questioning. The police wanted to interrogate her by giving her a string of questions in writing. She refused to answer the questionnaire, on the grounds that it was a violation of her fundamental right against selfincrimination. The police insisted that she must answer their questions and booked her under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes punishment for refusing to answer any question asked by a public servant authorised to ask that question. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Nandini Satpathy had a right to silence and whether people can refuse to answer questions during investigation that would point towards their guilt. B. Observations by the Supreme Court Article 20 (3) of the Constitution lays down that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against her/himself. Section 161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], casts a duty on a person to truthfully answer all questions, except those which establish personal guilt to an investigating officer. The Supreme Court accepted that there is a rivalry between societal interest in crime detection and the constitutional rights of an accused person. They admitted that the police had a difficult job to do especially when crimes were growing and criminals were outwitting detectives. Despite this, the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution is of utmost importance, the Court said. In the interest of protecting these rights, we cannot afford to write off fear of police torture leading to forced self incrimination. While any statement given freely and voluntarily by an accused person is admissible and even invaluable to an investigation, use of pressure whether subtle or crude, mental or physical, direct or indirect but sufficiently substantial by the police to get information is not permitted as it violates 70 Manual on Human Rights for Police Officers