Right To Remain Silent | Amendment Rights | The Constituion Of India | The National TV




The accused have the right to remain silent during all the stages of the proceedings. No matters how heinous the gravity of the crime is. This right applies from the beginning when the person is arrested.

Right to remain silent should be known to each and every individual of the country It came into light after the 5th amendment of the US constitution 

“Where a person cannot be compiled to give testimony which could incriminate him” but this does not mean that the accused can remain silent any time, he could only be protected from the statement which could incriminate him

Silence at trial after the 5th amendment states that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself that will prove his guilt.

Silence during interrogations of the accused has the right to avoid the question or to remain silent in the questions which could somehow incriminate him.


Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 

This case was one of the landmark Judgements in the history of accused rights. It was held that the accused have the right to consult the lawyer and the lawyer should be present at the time of Investigation. If he can't arrange a lawyer he must be provided with one.


In India
The right to remain silent in India is somehow similar to the US.

Article20(3): It states that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Article 21 of Constitution of India

It states that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I

It was held that the procedure shall be just fair and reasonable. These are the fundamental rights and cannot be abridged in any situation.

Section 161(2) of CrPc

Accused shall not be bound to answer those questions which have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge. 

Section 315 of the code of criminal procedure

It states that the accused can give evidence in writing on his own behalf to disprove the charges made against him.

Nandani sympathy v. P.L. Dani 1978 

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court followed the U.S judgment of Miranda v. Arizona.  

It was held that the accused must not speak and keep his mouth shut in the question which could prove his guilt. This is applicable before as well as after trial soon after the Person is arrested.



Concluding remark

Salivas v. Texas

It was held that Prosecutions can put questions upon the silence of an accused who is Out of the custody of the investigating officer, Voluntarily gives the statements after telling the Miranda rights, Stays silence without invoking his 5th Amendment rights.

After looking upon the situation of the US and India, it is opined that prosecution must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, as the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution.

Accused is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proven after it is proved that the law is an accused centric and favors the accused.





Read More Latest Bollywood Movie Reviews & News

Read More Sports News, Cricket News

Read More Wonderful Articles on Life, Health and more

Read More Latest Mobile, Laptop News & Review

Leave a Reply