Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Selvi Ors V State of Karnataka Anrs
Selvi Ors V State of Karnataka Anrs
Case Study
Selvi & Ors. V. State Of Karnataka & Anr. [2010, 7SCC, 263]
Acknowledgment
This assignment is intended to cover the case Selvi & Ors. V. State Of Karnataka & Anr. [2010, 7SCC, 263] under Constitution of India. Basic and pre-requisite information have been included. I acknowledge the inspiration and blessing of my respected faculty Mr. Bhrigu Misra. He made my all doubt crystal clear. I am full of gratitude to my seniors Pratik Mishra, Himanshu Priyadarshi, Wassiuddin Khan and Mayank Dubey for the patience shown and encouragement given to complete this assignment. My heartful thanks are due to my friends Priyesh Mishra, Priyanshu Mishra, Pallvi Anand, Prashant Kumar Singh, Purusharth Tolani, K.M. Tripathi, P.S. Sridhar Raj and Manisha Chaturvedi for providing relevant resources. In the last but not the least, my sense of gratitude is due to AMITY LAW SCHOOL, LUCKNOW. Every effort has been made to avoid errors and mistakes; however their presence cannot be ruled out.
Animesh Kumar
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Index
1. Introduction................................................................................................1 2. Facts of the case..........................................................................................3 3. Judgment.....................................................................................................4 i. ii. iii. iv. Nandini Satpathi Case...........................................................................6 An essential safeguard...........................................................................7 Right to Privacy.....................................................................................8 NHRC Guidelines..................................................................................9
4.Bibliography...............................................................................................11
ii
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Introduction
With Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnans retirement in the first half of this month, came a series of long pending judgments. Be it ranging from the constitutionality of narco- analysis, the Reliance case to the permissibility of arbitrary removal of Governors under the Constitution. Below is a short summary of some of these decisions. Lets start with Bhim Singh v. Union of India. The issue was whether the fact that the Governor held office during the pleasure of the President under Article 156 meant that he/she can be removed arbitrarily. The Court held that the doctrine of pleasure is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure. The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the Authority, but can only be for valid reasons. The Court also delved into the role of a Governor and stated that he or she ought not to be in sync with the mandate of the Union Govs policies and he is neither an employee nor agent of the Union government. In Union of India v. R. Gandhi, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The NCLT was introduced by an amendment to the Companies Act, 1956 but not yet notified. However, it was challenged in the Madras High Court stating that the powers of the High Court cannot be transferred to a quasi- judicial tribunal. The Supreme Court, while upholding the validity stated that only judicial members (lawyers or judges) can be part of such tribunal. A good comment can be found on Indian Corporate Law. A constitutional bench in K Krishna Murthy v. Union of India, upheld the constitutional validity of Article 243 D and 243 T that provide for reservations in local panchayat bodies. CJI Balakrishnan (now ex.) stated that the nature and purpose of reservation in the context of local self-government is considerably different from that of higher education and public employment. In this sense, Articles 243-D and Article 243-T form a distinct and independent constitutional basis for affirmative action and the principles that have been evolved in relation to the reservation policies enabled by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) cannot be readily applied in the context of local self-government. The Bench, however, made it clear that the ceiling of 50 per cent vertical reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBCs should not be breached in the context of
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Judgment
The first issue raised by the court was whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates rights against self incrimination under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution? It had two sub issues; Issue 1 A, whether the investigative use of the impugned techniques create a likelihood of incrimination for the subject? Issue 1 B, Whether the results derived from the impugned technique amount to testimonial compulsion thereby attracting Art. 20 (3)? The court dealt with the first issue on a wide canvass. It first established the interrelationship between the right against self-incrimination and the right to fair trial, locating this in the realm of human rights. Drawing from Maneka Gandhi case it was held that Art. 20 (3) should be construed with due regard to the interrelationship between rights. For the court, the right in Article 20 (3) should be seen in relation with multiple dimensions of personal liberty under Art. 21, which include right to privacy, right to fair trial and substantive due process. Infusion of constitutional values into all branches of law, including procedural areas should be the approach and execution of such laws should bear in mind satisfaction of the claims of due process. In the ultimate analysis, involuntary administration is found to be a violation of both Articles 20 (3) and 21. The next questions were whether the investigative use of the techniques could raise self incrimination, admissibility of the results amounts to testimonial compulsion, whether the protection is available only for the accused and also for the witnesses. Satish Sharma1 and Nadini Satpathy2 have already laid to rest most of these issues. It was held that the protection of Art. 20 (3) extend to investigative stage and to all who are accused as well as those who apprehend that their answers could expose them to criminal charges in the case under investigation or in any other case. Answering the question what constitutes incrimination, the court categorizes three uses of statements in custody; (i) derivative use- information revealed leading to discovery of independent materials, (ii) transactional use when the information proves to be useful for cases other than the one investigated, and
1 2
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
The Supreme Court's approach to matters of national security has long been guided by minimalism a doctrine that enables the court to settle pending disputes rather than articulate deeper constitutional principles. When confronted with competing claims of national security and Fundamental Rights, the court has played the role of a mediator rather than a guardian of Fundamental Rights. In doing so, it has shown more concern for procedural safeguards and compliance rather than addressing substantive issues.
3
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
10
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II
Bibliography
11
Selvi & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr.| LAW OF CONSTITUTION-II