Introduction
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused’s right to silence cannot be used as a blanket shield to avoid a lawful criminal investigation. At the same time, the Court cautioned the police that the power to summon an accused cannot be exercised endlessly or in a manner that amounts to harassment.
The Court emphasised the need to maintain a balance between the investigating agency’s statutory powers and the accused’s constitutional protections.
Background of the Case
The matter concerned repeated notices issued to the accused during an ongoing criminal investigation under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The accused challenged the repeated summons, contending that he had already cooperated with the investigation and had undergone lengthy questioning.
He also raised concerns regarding his health and argued that repeated physical appearances before the Investigating Officer were unnecessary.
The investigating agency, however, maintained that the accused had not fully cooperated and had allegedly given evasive replies to certain questions.
Right To Silence Does Not Mean Right To Avoid Investigation
The High Court recognised the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
However, the Court clarified that the right to silence does not mean that an accused can completely refuse to participate in every aspect of a lawful investigation.
There is a distinction between:
The right not to provide self-incriminating answers; and
The obligation to appear before an Investigating Officer when lawfully required.
The constitutional protection prevents compelled self-incrimination, but it does not give an accused an unrestricted right to obstruct the investigation.
Police Cannot Resort To Endless Summoning
At the same time, the Court made it clear that investigating agencies cannot repeatedly summon an accused without a genuine investigative requirement.
The power under Section 35(3) BNSS must be exercised for a legitimate purpose and cannot become a tool for unnecessary harassment.
Repeated notices must therefore have a reasonable connection with the investigation.
Article 21 And Fair Investigation
The Court also emphasised the importance of Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty.
A criminal investigation must be conducted fairly and within a reasonable period. It cannot become unnecessarily prolonged, oppressive or arbitrary.
Where an accused has already substantially cooperated and has genuine health concerns, the investigating agency should adopt a reasonable and humane approach while completing the remaining investigation.
Investigating Officer Has Discretion
The High Court recognised that the Investigating Officer must retain sufficient discretion to question the accused whenever such questioning is genuinely necessary.
However, that discretion is not unlimited.
The investigating agency must be able to demonstrate a legitimate investigative purpose behind requiring the accused’s presence and cannot repeatedly call the person merely because the investigation is continuing.
Court’s Balanced Approach
The High Court adopted a balanced approach rather than completely preventing further investigation.
The Court directed the accused to continue cooperating with the investigation while requiring the investigating agency to ensure that the process does not become unnecessarily burdensome.
The Court also emphasised that the remaining investigation should be completed within a reasonable timeframe.
Court’s Decision
The High Court disposed of the proceedings while protecting both sides.
It clarified that:
An accused cannot use the right to silence to completely avoid lawful investigation.
Article 20(3) protects against compelled self-incrimination.
Police cannot subject an accused to endless or purposeless summons.
Investigative powers must be exercised reasonably and proportionately.
The accused is required to cooperate with legitimate investigative requirements.
Significance Of The Judgment
The judgment is significant because it:
Clarifies the scope of the right to silence.
Distinguishes the right against self-incrimination from the obligation to cooperate with investigation.
Places limits on repeated police summons.
Reinforces constitutional protection of personal liberty.
Requires investigating agencies to exercise their powers reasonably.
Protects accused persons from unnecessary investigative harassment.
Conclusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced a crucial balance between effective criminal investigation and individual liberty.
An accused cannot stretch the right to silence into a right to avoid a lawful investigation. At the same time, the police cannot use their investigative powers to repeatedly summon a person without a genuine purpose.
