CBI Can't Justify Arvind Kejriwal's Arrest On His 'Evasive Replies'; Accused Has Right To Remain Silent : Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

In the judgment granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the CBI FIR relating to the liquor policy case, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court observed that the agency cannot justify his arrest on the ground that he gave 'evasive replies' during the interrogation.

Justice Bhuyan highlighted the cardinal principle that an accused has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to testify against itself, which has been enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Cooperation with the investigation does not mean that the accused should give the answers which the investigating agency wants.

Justice Bhuyan wrote :

"The respondent is definitely wrong when it says that because the appellant was evasive in his reply, because he was not cooperating with the investigation, therefore, he was rightly arrested and now should be continued in detention. It cannot be the proposition that only when an accused answers the questions put to him by the investigation agency in the manner in which the investigating agency would like the accused to answer, would mean that the accused is cooperating with the investigation. Further, the respondent cannot justify arrest and continued detention citing evasive reply."

Referring to Article 20(3) of the Constitution, Justice Bhuyan added :

"We should not forget the cardinal principle under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This Court has held that such a protection is available to a person accused of an offence not merely with respect to the evidence that may be given in the court in the course of the trial, but is also available to the accused at a previous stage if an accusation has been made against him which might in the normal course result in his prosecution. Thus, the protection is available to a person against whom a formal accusation has been made, though the actual trial may not have commenced and if such an accusation relates to the commission of an offence which in the normal course may result in prosecution. An accused has the right to remain silent; he cannot be compelled to make inculpatory statements against himself. No adverse inference can be drawn from the silence of the accused. If this is the position, then the very grounds given for arrest of the appellant would be wholly untenable. On such grounds, it would be a travesty of justice to keep the appellant in further detention in the CBI case, more so, when he has already been granted bail on the same set of allegations under the more stringent provisions of PMLA."

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Related- Cooperation With Investigation Doesn't Mean Accused Should Confess To Crime : Supreme Court