What is an individual’s right against self-incrimination?

Subject: Polity

Section: Constitution

Context:

Concept:

The right against self-incrimination has its origins in Roman law, and evolved as a distinct right in the English jurisprudence. The Fifth Amendment in the United States Constitution says “No person shall be…compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…without due process of law…”, a right that is colloquially referred to as “taking/ pleading the Fifth”.
Article 20(3) in Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Indian Constitution says, “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the right to remain silent in an interrogation essentially flow from this constitutionally guaranteed right against self-incrimination. This right also ensures that police cannot coerce anyone to confess to a crime, and obtain a conviction based on that confession.

How does the right against self-incrimination apply in criminal cases?

Since the onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the state, a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself or share information that might go against him in a trial.
In the landmark 1961 verdict in The State of Bombay versus Kathi Kalu Oghad, an eleven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that obtaining photographs, fingerprints, signatures, and thumb impressions would not violate the right against self-incrimination of an accused. The court distinguished “to be a witness” from “furnishing evidence”.
In 2019, the Supreme Court in its ruling in Ritesh Sinha versus State of Uttar Pradesh broadened the parameters of handwriting samples to include voice samples, adding that this would not violate the right against self-incrimination.
Earlier in 2010, in Selvi v State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held that a narcoanalysis test without the consent of the accused would amount to violation of the right against self-incrimination.
However, obtaining a DNA sample from the accused is permitted. If an accused refuses to give a sample, the court can draw adverse inferences against him under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.