The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused person's right to remain silent during interrogation is a substantive constitutional guarantee, while making clear that this protection cannot be used to avoid the obligation to cooperate with a lawful investigation. The court also cautioned investigating officers against turning their power to summon an accused into a means of endless or purposeless questioning.
The Case Before the Court
Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao was considering a writ petition filed by Duvvada Srinivas, challenging the registration of an FIR and repeated notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner claimed he had already cooperated with the investigation and undergone nearly nine and a half hours of interrogation, making repeated personal appearances unnecessary and arbitrary.
Right to Silence Is Protected, But Cooperation Still Matters
The High Court said the right to remain silent isn't merely a procedural protection, but a substantive guarantee flowing from Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself. It observed that an accused cannot be forced to confess or disclose everything merely because an investigating officer considers such disclosure necessary.
At the same time, the court drew an important distinction between protection against self-incrimination and the obligation to appear before an investigating officer when lawfully required, for purposes such as identification, clarification, or confrontation with material already collected. "The right to silence, therefore, cannot be stretched to the extent of absolving the accused of every civic and legal obligation to participate in the investigative process when lawfully called upon to do so," the court held.
The State had opposed the petition, arguing that the writ plea was premature and amounted to unwarranted interference with an ongoing criminal investigation, maintaining that the investigating agency was required to collect material, verify facts, examine witnesses, and ascertain the involvement, if any, of the persons concerned.
A Warning Against Repetitive, Purposeless Summons
Examining Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the High Court noted that the provision serves as a safeguard by allowing an accused person's presence to be secured through a notice when arrest is unnecessary. However, it said the provision was never intended to become an instrument of harassment through repeated and purposeless summons after an accused had already cooperated.
The court also held that merely issuing successive notices wouldn't, by itself, establish that an investigating officer had acted arbitrarily or with mala fide intent. Decisions on whether further clarification, questioning, or confrontation is required primarily fall within investigative discretion, and courts shouldn't substitute their own assessment unless there's manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, or clear abuse of process.
That said, the Bench noted that this discretion has limits, observing that deference to investigators cannot become a licence for repetitive summons without a discernible purpose or timeline. The court further linked Article 21 protections to the right to a speedy and fair investigation, free from vexatious or protracted proceedings, stating that where an accused has substantially cooperated, particularly when bona fide health concerns exist, the remaining investigation should be conducted in a humane, time-bound, and proportionate manner.
A Middle Path: Cooperation With a Clear Timeline
Rather than quashing the FIR or imposing a blanket prohibition on further investigation, the High Court adopted what it described as a middle course. It directed the petitioner to cooperate, while requiring the investigating officer to complete the investigation with due promptitude and file the appropriate chargesheet, final report, or other proceedings before the jurisdictional magistrate in accordance with law.
The investigating officer was also directed to prepare a schedule specifying in advance the dates and times when the petitioner would be required to appear. The court said this would prevent the investigation from continuing indefinitely, while still allowing investigators a reasonable opportunity to complete their work.
The petitioner was permitted to appear before the investigating officer accompanied by a Legal Aid Counsel, which the court considered a reasonable safeguard consistent with constitutional guarantees of legal assistance and principles of fair investigation.
The High Court ultimately declined to quash the FIR or completely restrain further investigation, disposing of the writ petition on this basis. It stressed that both sides had corresponding responsibilities: the petitioner must genuinely cooperate without adopting an evasive or obstructive approach under the guise of exercising the right to silence, while investigators must avoid unnecessary or repetitive summons once cooperation has been extended on the material aspects of the case.
FAQs
Q1. What did the Andhra Pradesh High Court rule about the right to silence?
The court held that the right to remain silent is a substantive constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3), but it cannot be used to avoid the obligation to cooperate with a lawful police investigation.
Q2. What limits did the court place on investigating officers?
The court cautioned against issuing repeated, purposeless summons once an accused has cooperated, stating that investigative discretion cannot become a licence for endless or protracted proceedings.
Q3. What order did the court ultimately pass in this case?
The court declined to quash the FIR but directed the petitioner to cooperate under a structured schedule, requiring the investigating officer to specify appearance dates in advance and complete the investigation promptly.