CAPF AC 2021 Q90: Indian Polity – Fundamental Rights
- (a) Protection against prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once
- (b) To refuse to give his/her sample of handwriting as evidence to support a prosecution against him/her
- (c) To act as a witness against himself/herself
- (d) Right not to be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence
Answer: (b) To refuse to give his/her sample of handwriting as evidence to support a prosecution against him/her
Explanation
Rights of an accused under Article 20
How to think: Article 20 gives three protections.
Then ask which option is not covered.
The Supreme Court has said that giving a handwriting sample is not the same as being a witness against oneself.
| Clause | Protection |
|---|---|
| 20(1) | No ex post facto criminal law: conviction only for breaking a law in force at the time of the act |
| 20(2) | No double jeopardy: no prosecution and punishment twice for the same offence |
| 20(3) | No self-incrimination: an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself |
The ruling: in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) the Supreme Court held that giving thumb impressions, specimen handwriting or signatures is not being a witness.
So an accused has no fundamental right to refuse a handwriting sample.
Answer: (b).
Why each option is right or wrong
- (a) Incorrect. This right is provided: Article 20(2) bars double jeopardy.
- (b) CORRECT. There is no fundamental right to refuse a handwriting sample (Kathi Kalu Oghad, 1961).
- (c) Incorrect. Article 20(3) deals with this: a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
- (d) Incorrect. This right is provided: Article 20(1) bars retrospective criminal laws.
Key point
Article 20: (1) no ex post facto criminal law, (2) no double jeopardy, (3) no self-incrimination. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961): handwriting, fingerprints and signatures are not testimony. Selvi (2010): narco-analysis without consent violates Article 20(3).
Remember
A handwriting sample is not self-incrimination.
Common mistakes
- Thinking Article 20(3) lets an accused refuse fingerprints or handwriting samples.
- Mixing up double jeopardy with being tried by two different courts in appeal.
- Forgetting that Article 20 cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
Exam tip
Educated guess: options (a), (c) and (d) each echo one clause of Article 20. Option (b) is the only one about a physical sample, which courts treat differently from spoken or written testimony.
Sources
- Constitution of India — Article 20; State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), Supreme Court of India
- NCERT Class XI Political Science — Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 2: Rights in the Indian Constitution