You are on page 1of 2

The Legal Analyst ISSN: 2231-5594 Volume 1, 2011, pp.

155-156

CRITIQUE ON SMT. SELVI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA: A CASE ON SELF INCRIMINATION


Pramod Tiwari* Introduction: Task of jurisprudence is to link law with other disciplines and so help to locate it within its wider social context. Jurisprudence should not confine itself to logic. legal theory is concerned with law as it exist an function in society and the way in which law is created and enforced, the influence of social opinion and law on each other, the effectiveness of the law and part played by sanctions or all points where jurisprudence meets other disciplines such as Sociology, Psychology and Science & Technology and so forth. Dean Roscoe Pound of Harvard Law School is of the view that Jurisprudence, Ethics, Economics, Science & Technology are distinct enough at the core but shade out into each other. When we look at the core, the analytical distinction is sound enough, but we shall not understand even that core, unless we are prepared to make continual deep incursions from each into each of others .All social sciences must be coworkers and emphatically all must be co-workers with jurisprudence.1 Lastly, law should be read with other disciplines because all branches of knowledge are so interrelated that none of them can be studied in isolation. The Selvis Case This case (Smt Selvi v. State of Karnataka)2 is decided by five Judges Bench of apex court, wherein the majority, constituted by Honble Justice K.G Balakrishnan, Honble Justice R.V Rabindran and Honble Justice J.M Panchal, held that to compel an accused person for NARCO analysis test, Brain Mapping Test, and Polygraphy test is violation of doctrine of self incrimination, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Although in its earlier decisions our apex court had decided otherwise. In Dastagir v. State of Madras 3 Supreme Court held that the immunity under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution do not extend to compulsory production of material objects or compulsion to give specimen writing, signature, finger impression etc. In State of Bombay v. Kathi kalu4 Supreme Court held that Art. 20(3) is applicable only on written or oral testimony of accused. Author is of the view that, law should not be read in its isolation. Law has deep relationship with Science & Technology and hence in this scientific era law should take assistance of scientific inventions so that it could keep pace with changing need of society. Thus, if we reject the tests like NARCO analysis, Brain Mapping and Polygraphy then perhaps we are going to weaken our criminal justice system in general and rate of conviction in particular. Hence, to maintain faith of people in criminal Justice system we should have to adopt the purposive interpretation of Constitutional clause as enshrined under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Lastly, Author expresses his view with due respect, that it would had been better if the Selvis case had been decided in the line of Dastgirs and Kathi kalus case. Concluding Observation: Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India says that No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In Kathi Kalus case Supreme Court said that Art. 20(3) of the Constitution is applicable only upon written or oral testimony of accused.

* B.Sc., LL.M., NET, Law School, B anaras Hindu Uni versity, Varanasi, INDIA.
1 2

Dean Roscoe Pound, Law and Morals. at 359 Judgment delivered on 05.05.2010 3 AIR 1960 SC 756 4 AIR 1961 SC 1816

156

THE LEGAL ANALYST

[Vol. I

______________________________________________________________________________
Hence, protection under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution should not be extended in such a way as to hamper the social interest. As per Sociological School of Jurisprudence, if there is clash between social interest and Individual interest then it is social interest which is going to be protected. Hence, tests like NARCO analysis, Brain Mapping and Polygraphy should not be brought within the purview of Art. 20(3) of The Constitution of India so as to hamper the social interest.

You might also like