BARKATULLAH UNIVERSITY BHOPAL

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

PROJECT ON:

Right to remain silent as a fair trial right and its

impact on during the trial:

Analysis of Supreme Court Judgment

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Ms. Sangeeta Singh Aman Chourasia

198080018
 Table of Contents

CERTIFICATE...................................................................................................................................4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................................................5
Statement of Problem..........................................................................................................................6
Objectives of Study..............................................................................................................................6
Research Questions.............................................................................................................................6
Hypothesis............................................................................................................................................6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE.............................................................................................................6
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................7
Section 313 of CrPC and the Right to Silence...................................................................................8
The Malimath Committee on Right to Silence..................................................................................8
Committee’s Remarks:....................................................................................................................9
Compulsion resulting in his giving evidence “against himself”......................................................10
Impact of Right to remain silence.....................................................................................................11
CASE ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................................12
1. Phula Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh..................................................................12
MATERIAL FACTS.................................................................................................................12
ISSUES.......................................................................................................................................12
ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANT................................................................................13
ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT.............................................................................13
CONCRETE JUDGMENT.......................................................................................................14
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE......................................................................................................14
2. REENA HAZARIKA Versus STATE OF ASSAM.............................................................15
MATERIAL FACTS.................................................................................................................15
ISSUES.......................................................................................................................................15
ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANT................................................................................16
ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT.............................................................................16
CONCRETE JUDGMENT.......................................................................................................17
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE......................................................................................................17
3. Asha Tamang Versus State of West Bengal.............................................................................18
MATERIAL FACTS.................................................................................................................18
ISSUE.........................................................................................................................................18
ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANT................................................................................19

2
 ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT.............................................................................19
CONCRETE JUDGMENT.......................................................................................................20
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE......................................................................................................20
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................21
BIBLOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................21

3
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that project titled Right to remain silent as a fair trial right and its impact on
during the trial: Analysis Supreme Court Judgment has been prepared and submitted by
Aman Chourasia, currently pursuing their B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) at Barkatullah University,
Bhopal in fulfilment of Code of Criminal Procedure course. It is also certified that this is their
original research project and this project has not been submitted to any other University, nor
published in any journal.

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere gratitude to all those who helped me with this project. I am very grateful
to our Code of Criminal Procedure teacher, Ms Sangeeta Singh, who had supported us
throughout this course by being an ideal mentor. We are also thankful to the Library
Administration for providing necessary books and texts needed for the completion of this

5
project. Finally, we would like to thank our classmates and seniors for all the guidance they
had provided.

Statement of Problem
Whether can court draw adverse interference if the accused remain silent during trial or
investigation procedure

Objectives of Study
 To understand the right to remain silent during trial.

6
  To understand that court can draw adverse interference from accused silent.
 To understand the impact of remain to silent during trial on case.

Research Questions
 What would be impact on case if accused remain silent during trial?
 Whether remain silent during trial can help accused in case or not?
 What is the provision of criminal law which deal with right to remain silent?

Hypothesis
Right to remain silent given to accused to give benefit him but remain silent during trial
period it will be make case more complicate and may be there can be adverse effect on case.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1. PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 13th Edition, Butterworths
Relevant statutory changes have been incorporated, and important decisions by apex
courts in India, that have either altered the direction of legal principles or thrown new
light on existing principles, have been carefully examined.
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, CrPC, 23rd Edition
A topical commentary, with a section-wise content flow, this work adopts an entirely
different approach to the study of the law of Code of Criminal Procedure; focusing on
emerging issues as well as legislative and judicial developments. Significant changes
in the well- established rules pertaining to law of crime and developments made have
been referred at appropriate places in this work.

INTRODUCTION
The "right to silence" is a principle of common law and means that normally courts or courts
in fact should not be invited or encouraged to conclude, by the parties or prosecutors, that a
suspect or accused person is guilty simply because he refused to answer questions asked to
him by police or court.

7
Right against self-incrimination is not just a statutory right but a constitutional right under
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. It is based on the concept that no person can be
forced to give a witness against himself. No force or compulsion is put against the person
who is accused for committing an offence. It is a ‘Fundamental Right’ and it safeguards a
person or a corporation who are accused of an offence. In order to protect their interest,
certain rights are also included for them. This provision mentioned is brought into the Indian
Constitution by referring into the principles laid down by English and American
jurisprudence. As per the jurisprudence no person can give testimony or can be forced or
compelled to give testimony which may result in exposing him to conviction.

The origins of the right to silence may not be exactly clear, but the right dates back to the
Middle Ages in England. During the 16th century, the English courts of the Star Chamber
and the High Commission developed the practice of forcing suspects to take an oath known
as “ex-officio oath” and the accused had to answer questions, even without a formal
indictment, presented by the judge and the prosecutor. If a person refused to take an oath, he
could be tortured. These Star Chambers and Commissions were later abolished. The right to
silence is based on the “nemo debet principle prodere ipsum”, the privilege against self-
incrimination.1

Section 313 of CrPC and the Right to Silence

Section 313 provides the accused with the ‘right to silence’ at the stage of trial. The Section
stipulates the power of the Court to question the witness at any stage of the trial about
circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The accused is not administered an oath
when he is examined under sub-clause (3) of this Section and is not liable to be punished for
not answering or providing a false answer during such an examination. The legislative
1
Law Commission of India, 180th Report on Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the right to silence.

8
scheme of the provision is to allow the accused to explain circumstances which appear to be
incriminating him.2 However, there is no express provision which mandates an explanation
from the accused. Moreover, the Section embodies the right to silence of the accused when it
provides that the refusal to answer by the accused is not punishable. Also, it can be inferred
from the non-administration of the oath to the accused before such examination that the
accused is not under any compulsion to answer any questions made under this Section: Thus,
Section 313, in spirit, acts as an aid to the accused to explain or rebut any incriminating
evidence against him if he deems fit. The Section also provides that answers given by the
accused may be taken into consideration by the Court. This makes it even more important
that the accused must answer only when he is certain that his answer could not be used as
evidence against him and further displays the significance of his right to silence.

The Malimath Committee on Right to Silence

The Malimath committee noted that the accused is, in most cases, the best source of
information. Therefore, it suggested changes in CrPC to take advantage of this information,
respecting the rights of the accused. The committee argued that, without subjecting the
accused to any coercion, the court should be free to question the accused to obtain the
relevant information and whether he refuses to respond, to make adverse inferences against
the accused.

The Committee proposed the following:

Section 313 of the Code may be substituted by Section 313-A, 313-B and 313-C on the
following lines:

i. 313-A In every trial, the Court shall, immediately after the witnesses for the
prosecution have been examined, question the accused generally, to explain
personally any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
ii. 313-B (1): Without previously warning the accused, the Court may at any stage of
trial and shall, after the examination under Section 313-A and before he is called on
his defence put such questions to him as the court considers necessary with the object
of discovering the truth in the case.
If the accused remains silent or refuses to answer any questions asked of him by the
court to which he is not required by law to respond, the court may take such

2
Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta And Anr vs State of West Bengal, 1969 AIR 381

9
 appropriate inference, including adverse inference, as it considers appropriate in the
circumstances.
iii. 313-C (1): No oath shall be administered when the accused is examined under Section
313-A or Section 313-B and the accused shall not be liable to punishment for refusing
to answer any question or by giving false answer to them. The answers given by the
accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence
for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, or any other offence which
such answers may tend to show he has committed.

Committee’s Remarks:
The Committee stated that it is not a violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution to make
adverse inference against the accused in his silence. The committee recommended
amendments to the CrPC to include provisions to draw adverse inferences if the accused
chooses to remain silent.3

The committee noted that in the current system there is minimal participation by the accused.
In addition, the accused is not required to disclose his position and the advantage of the
exception to any of the claims. This impedes the search for the truth and distorts the judgment
in favour of the accused. The commission therefore proposed that the accused be required to
submit a statement disclosing his position.

The committee recommended the following changes to improve the credibility and
competence of the investigating agency:

 Creation of an independent, competent and separate investigating agency. It is agency

should be isolated from political pressures.
 It must be ensured that during the investigation, witnesses and defendants are not
subjected to any threats or torture. In addition, only voluntary statements made by the
accused and witnessed are recorded accurately and faithfully.
 To properly amend CrPC Sections 161 and 162 to include the recording and sign the
statements made by a person to the Police and do such admissible statements as
evidence.
 Repeal of Sections 25 to 29 from the Evidence Act.

3
Malimath Committee (n 1) 52

10
The committee after analysing the criminal law of different jurisdictions such as UK,
Northern Ireland, America etc. and after acknowledging views of eminent jurists and Law
Commission came to the conclusion that Adverse inference should be formed if the Accused
Chooses to remain silent.

The committee also concluded that drawing of adverse inferences against the accused if he
chooses not to speak is not violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 20(3) of
the Constitution.

Compulsion resulting in his giving evidence “against himself”

The right to silence has various facets. One is that the burden is on the State or rather the
prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty. Another is that an accused is presumed to be
innocent till he is proved to be guilty. A third is the right of the accused against self-
incrimination, namely, the right to be silent and that he cannot be compelled to incriminate
himself. There are also exceptions to the rule. An accused can be compelled to submit to
investigation by allowing his photographs taken, voice recorded, his blood sample tested, his
hair or other bodily material used for DNA testing etc.4

In Vidya Verma v. Shiv Narain held that the protection under Article 20 (3) does not extend
to the proceeding other than criminal proceeding. The American constitution provide such
protection in any proceeding (civil or criminal) where the answer might incriminate him in
future criminal proceeding.

In Kalawati v. State of H. P5 - SC held that Article 20 (3) does not apply at all to a case where
the confession is made by an accused without any inducement, threat, or promise. Similarly,
retraced confessions, along though they have very little probative value, are not repugnant to
this clause.

Impact of Right to remain silence

The right to silence creates problems for the criminal justice system.6

4
Prof. Kialash rail, the constitutional law of India, p-228-231, 7th edition, central law publication (2008)
5
AIR 1953 SC 131
6
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/archive/sarc/Right_to_Silence/Issues_Paper/Issuesch7.htm#chapter%207

11
 That the right to silence is `abused' by `hardened' or `professional' criminals.
Assessment of this claim requires consideration of what it would mean to say that the
exercise of a right constituted an abuse of that right; and of the extent to which
previous involvement in the criminal justice system is an indicator of the likelihood
that a suspect will exercise their right to silence.

 That the right to silence hampers police investigations. Assessment of this claim
requires consideration of the incidence of the exercise of the right to silence, and the
extent to which the exercise of the right decreases the chances of charges being laid.

 That the right to silence can create difficulties for the prosecution at trial, in particular
through the difficulty of confronting an ambush defence. Apart from an increased
likelihood of unjustified acquittal, this problem might also manifest in the lengthening
of trials with the prosecution being obliged to lead evidence to counter the full gamut
of defences which could conceivably be relied upon.

 That the right to silence leads to an excessively high rate of unjustified acquittals.
Assessment of this claim again requires consideration of the extent to which the
exercise of the right to silence increases the likelihood of acquittal.

CASE ANALYSIS

12
 1. Phula Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh7

MATERIAL FACTS

 Vikil chand approach to appellant with complaint that some people of village were
encroach upon his land.
 When the appellant investigated the matter, he finds that one and half kanal of the
Vikil chand was encroach by the complainant’s father.
 Objection was raised by the complainant about this demarcation.
 The appellant made a report and meet to complainant and asked for chai pani to
cancel the demarcation report.
 The appellant demanded Rs 5000 as a bribe from the complainant.
 After some negotiation between the appellant and the complainant, the appellant was
agreed for Rs 1000 as a bribe.
 The appellant gets arrested when he come to collect bribe amount from the
complainant.

ISSUES
 Whether the High Court followed parameters and law laid down to reverse the
judgment of acquittal or not?
 Whether the accused has a responsibility to explain his statement under section 313 of
CrPC regarding any material produced against him?

ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANT

7
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2271 of 2011

13
1. It was submitted that the appellant had already submitted demarcation report before
the Tahsildar therefore there was no chance for appellant to asked bribe from
complainant.
2. The complainant has mala fide intention toward the appellant because the appellant
shown in his report that the complainant encroached upon the land of Vikil Chand.
3. There was no evidence to show demand or acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
4. The High Court did not appreciate that there are different parameters for reversing the
acquittal sentence and, in this regard, did not apply the law established by this Court
in a series of judgments.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT

1. The learned counsel stated that the appellant visited the complainant house even when
there was no relationship between them.
2. It was submitted that the appellant removed his shirt and hanged it in house of
complainant and money was removed from his pant.
3. It was further submitted that when the appellant washed his hand, turn pink because
on notes sodium carbonate solution was used to trap the appellant.
4. It was stated that the appellant remains silent and did not say any thing how money
come into his pocket and why he visited house of complainant and how his hand turn
pink.

CONCRETE JUDGMENT

14
The supreme court cancel bail bond of appellant and stated that he must surrender before the
session court. The leave petition by appellant is dismissed.

The supreme court admitted facts that the appellant had no relationship with the complainant
and also appellant failed to explain reason behind to visit the house of complainant. Further
he did not explain how amount of 1000 found in his pocket and also how his hand turns pink
when he washed his hand.

Under Section 313 of CrPC the accused have a right to remain silent. But if any material
brings before against the accused then it was accused responsibility to explain it. However, if
accused remain silent during that time then court can would be entitled to draw an inference,
including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance
with law.8

The Supreme court stated that the appellate court can interfere with an acquittal order in
expectation cases or circumstance and appellate court should keep in mind presumption of
accused innocence. In the instant case, there is no perversity in the judgment of the High
Court as it cannot be said that the judgment is not based on evidence or the evidence on
record has not properly been reappreciated by the appellate court, which may warrant
interference by this court.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

In this case, it was noted by the Supreme court that the appellant was work as a kangon in
village of complainant. Where the appellant demand bribe from complainant. The court said
that the appellant failed to explain relationship between complainant and him and why he
visited the complainant house without any reason. More so, he did not furnish any
explanation in respect of recovery of Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his pant nor he could
furnish any information as how his fingers turned pink on being washed, with sodium
carbonate solution as the currency notes already found in pocket of his pant had been treated
with phenolphthalein. Even in the statement under Section 313 CrPC 9., the appellant
answered every question saying “I do not know” or “it is incorrect”. If the accused has been
given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the court, then
the accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his
statement under Section 313 CrPC10 is being recorded. However, in such an event, the court
8
Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 1357
9
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
10
Ibid.

15
would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused
as may be permissible in accordance with law.

2. REENA HAZARIKA Versus STATE OF ASSAM11

MATERIAL FACTS

 The appellant is wife of deceased and resided along with his minor daughter.
 They are living in tenant premises which belongs to PW1, PW2 and PW3, who are
brothers.
 It was stated that the appellant is assaulted the deceased in the intervening night.
 It was stated by PW 1, 2 and 3 that they heard noise and going in there found the
deceased had head injury and fall.
 It was said by them that they are unable to take deceased to hospital due to rain and
unavailability of ambulance.
 According to the post mortem report all injuries are ante mortem and caused by any
sharp object.

ISSUES
 Whether defence take by accused under section 313 of CrPC can be consider
irrelevant, illogical or ignore by court?
 When circumstantial evidence or last seen theory consider to be essential evidence to
prove accused guilty?

ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANT

11
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1330 OF 2018, (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2440 of 2018)

16
 It was submitted that the court have taken erred in holding that the links in the chain
of circumstances stood established leading to the only inescapable conclusion of the
appellant being the assailant and no other hypothesis of innocence being possible.
 The learned counsel stated that the injuries caused to deceased was by any sharp
weapon but the weapon recovered from the appellant was chop knife from which
causing injuries not possible.
 It was further said that the weapon recovered from the appellant are not given to
forensic examination.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT

 It was submitted by the counsel that the appellant was last seen with the deceased,
confirm by her daughter.
 It was stated that the appellant did not explain any circumstance that how the
deceased death happened at night.
 It was submitted that the knife used for assault, and soaked in blood the deceased’s
clothes were also recovered.

CONCRETE JUDGMENT

17
  It was observed by the court that the statement by the PW1 is that the deceased suffer
only head and otherwise he was alright and Pw1 try to call ambulance but don’t get
and further he stated that he did not apply any first aid upon deceased.
 But the daughter of the deceased stated that the pw1 applied Dettol upon wounds of
the deceased. Further Pw2 stated that he was woken up around 2 am by the sound of
appellant crying but Pw1 stated that he along with Pw2 call ambulance around 12 am.
 Both the statement is contradicting each other’s and stated made by the daughter are
not too relevant because she is minor child.
 The statement made by the appellant under section 313 of CrPC was that when she
come to house, she finds out that the deceased was lying down on floor and the locker
of her room are broken. She suspicions that someone assaulted his husband.
 After going though all the facts and circumstance of the case, court said that the links
in the chain of circumstances in a case of circumstantial evidence, cannot be said to
have been established leading to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant was the
assailant of the deceased, incompatible with any possibility of innocence of the
appellant. The possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other
manner cannot be completely ruled out. The appellant is therefore held entitled to
acquittal on the benefit of doubt.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

In this case, the statement made by the appellant under section 313 of CrPC was totally
ignore by the lower court and high court. Section 313, CrPC cannot be seen simply as a part
of audi alteram partem. It conders a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence
and can well be considered beyond a statutory right as a constitutional right to a fair trail
under Article 21 of the constitution, even if it is not to be considered as a piece of substantive
evidence, not being on oath under section 313(2) CrPC. If the accused takes a defence after
the prosecution evidence is closed, under section 313(1)(b) CrPC the court is duty bound
under section 313(4) CrPC to consider the same. The mere use of the word ‘may’ cannot be
held to confer a discretionary power on the court to consider or not to consider such defence,
since it constitutes a valuable right of an accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of
the prejudice that may be caused thereby. A solemn duty is cast on the court in dispensation
of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under section 313 CrPC
and to either accept or reject the same for reason specified in writing.

18
3. Asha Tamang Versus State of West Bengal12

MATERIAL FACTS
 The appellant run a brothel house and brought a minor girl from Nepal to Calcutta.
 She brought her by saying that she will give her job.
 In a medical examination, doctor said that the victim was habituated to sexual
intercourses.
 In ossification test, it was found that the victim aged about to 15 or below 17 year.
 It was noted that the victim made her statement to Magistrate in native language i.e.,
was Nepali.

ISSUE
 Whether the court can draw adverse interference if accused remain silent during the
trial?

ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANT

 It was submitted by the counsel that there was no evidence against the appellant to
show that she forced the victim for prostitution.

12
Criminal Appeal No. 398 Of 2008, decided on 28-09-2011

19
  The learned counsel “challenged the legality and/or admissibility of the report of the
ossification test in evidence since the age of the victim cannot be determined
conclusively from the said report of the ossification test”.
 It was stated that the even victim father was present in Calcutta but police did not call
him examination or to determine age of victim.
 It was submitted by the counsel that the victim did not show any support document
from which we can find whether she was native of Nepal or not.
 The counsel relying upon the case of Selvi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 13, where court
said that the appellant during her examination under Section 313 CrPC, no adverse
inference can be drawn for her silence on that score for the simple reason that as per
the scheme of Section 313 CrPC as also Proviso (b) to Section 315(1) CrPC adverse
inference cannot be drawn on account of the accused person's silence during trial.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT

 It was submitted by the counsel that the appellant brought victim from Nepal by
saying that she will provide better job in Calcutta.
 It was state that the victim brought to red light area and force to have sexual
intercourse with serval person, which was proof by medical examination of victim.
 It was said that the eyes witness or local of the area conform that the appellant was
running brothel house.

CONCRETE JUDGMENT

The court have opinion that the prosecution fails to give any documentary or evidence from
which we can said that the appellant brought the victim in India from Calcutta. Further court
said that the appellant had right to remain silent during her examination under Section 313
CrPC, it is to be noted that there is no dispute in respect of the proposition of law that the

13
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1

20
accused has the right to refuse to answer the question that may incriminate him in offence
alleged against him and no adverse inference can also be drawn on account of his silence
during trial. The court the appellant is directed to surrender within a fortnight to serve out the
sentence subject to set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned
trial court is further directed to take coercive measure in the event she does not surrender
within the stipulated period of time.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

Right to remain silent during her examination under Section 313 CrPC, it is to be noted that
there is no dispute in respect of the proposition of law that the accused has the right to refuse
to answer the question that may incriminate him in offence alleged against him and no
adverse inference can also be drawn on account of his silence during trial. But the fact
remains that the object of Section 313 CrPC is to give the accused an opportunity to explain a
case made out against him. In fact, this Section is intended for the benefit of the accused and
not to find out materials to support the prosecution case. Therefore, the court cannot use the
power under this Section for eliciting an admission from the accused nor for filling the lacuna
in the prosecution case. It is also equally important to note that this Section is meant to give
the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances brought on record by
the prosecution against him and a duty is cast upon the court to question him clearly and
properly in clear and simple language in order to make him understand the exact case he has
to meet in order to afford him a chance to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing
against him, if he can and so desires. Even though, it is open to the accused to refuse to
answer the questions put to him, the court is duty bound to give a chance to the accused to
explain the circumstances whenever the prosecution has satisfactorily proved its case. It,
however, entirely depends upon the accused as to whether he would avail of the opportunity
or not.

CONCLUSION
The right to silence is a long-standing fundamental human right, recognized by legislatures
around the world. However, their implementation differs in several countries and in the set of
principles and beliefs they adhere to. Due process incorporates the principles of liberalism.

21
The Indian judiciary follows due process and therefore proposes liberalism. The
jurisprudence with regard to drawing adverse inferences from the silence of the accused
during questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is flawed.
Firstly, the provision itself, in spirit, was inserted to aid the accused in providing explanation
for incriminating circumstances. It only allows the Court to draw inferences from the answers
provided by the accused not from his silence. It expressly precludes the administration of
oath to the accused so that the accused is not under any fear of punishment while making his
statements. Thus, it is logically redundant to draw adverse inferences from the silence of the
accused under Section 313 to the extent of solely relying on such evidence to convict the
accused. Thus, it is logically redundant to draw adverse inferences from the accused's silence
under Section 313, to the point of relying only on such evidence to convict the accused.

BIBLOGRAPHY
 Code of criminal Procedure, 1973
 Report of the law commission of India, 180th Report, vol-15, Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

 Prof. Kialash rail, the constitutional law of India, p-228-231, 7th edition, central law
publication (2008)
 Malimath Committee (n 1) 52

22