A Critical Analysis of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani

Abstract

Right against self-incrimination came into existence during the medieval times, with the Latin maxim of ‘nemon tenetur seipsum accusare,’ which means no person is obliged to accuse himself. This right gradually developed in common law to be considered as an essential right and an important facet of the principles of natural justice. This right is recognized in India as an inherent right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and by virtue of § 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These two legal provisions essentially cover the same subject matter, wherein they state that a person is not liable to answer questions, which might result in his incrimination. This right was recognized and its nuances were discussed and reiterated in the landmark case of Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani. This case is one of the most popularly cited cases when it comes to self-incrimination and right to be silent. But this case and the current standing of law on the subject matter have certain flaws in the principles that have been developed therein. Hence in this paper, the researcher will firstly discuss the relevant facts of the case, and then analyze the issues and principles that cropped up in the case regarding criminal procedure, with the help of fact analysis and hypothetical situations. And finally the researcher shall discuss the trajectory of cases and the current position of law on the subject. The purpose of this paper is to understand the principles regarding of § 161(2) and their applicability, which shall be done by critically analyzing the case.