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 the 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.
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 that 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 protected, but cooperation remains necessary
The High Court said the right to remain silent is not 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 a 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. It maintained that the investigating agency was required to collect material, verify facts, examine witnesses and ascertain the involvement, if any, of the persons concerned.
Court warns against endless and repetitive 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 cooperated.
The court also held that merely issuing successive notices would not, 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 should not substitute their own assessment unless there is manifest illegality, jurisdictional error or clear abuse of process.
However, the bench said such discretion has limits. It observed 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. 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, it said.
Investigation to proceed under structured schedule
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 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 and disposed of the writ petition. 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.
