Oral Testimonial Compulsion: A Comparative Study Of India And USA
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 19
- 2 min read
Swati Mishra, Gujarat National Law University, (Silvassa)
ABSTRACT
This paper undertakes a comparative legal analysis of the doctrine of oral testimonial compulsion, focusing on the constitutional safeguards provided to accused individuals in India and the United States. At the core of this study lies the principle of protection against self-incrimination—a vital component of criminal jurisprudence in democratic societies. In India, Article 20(3) of the Constitution enshrines the right of an accused to remain silent, thereby prohibiting the state from compelling an individual to testify against themselves in a criminal proceeding. This constitutional safeguard has been interpreted expansively by Indian courts to ensure procedural fairness and the protection of personal liberties.
In contrast, the United States offers a similar safeguard under the Fifth Amendment, which provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Although the two provisions are rooted in common law traditions and share a similar objective, they differ significantly in their scope, interpretation, and practical enforcement. This paper explores these differences by examining judicial precedents, statutory frameworks, and the underlying philosophical foundations of the right against self-incrimination in both jurisdictions.
The study delves into the implications of oral testimonial compulsion, especially in the context of custodial interrogations, polygraph tests, and narco-analysis, and evaluates the evolving legal standards governing these practices. It also analyzes landmark case laws such as Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and Selvi v. State of Karnataka in India, and Miranda v. Arizona and Chavez v. Martinez in the United States, to trace the development of this right over time. Through this comparative lens, the paper seeks to highlight the delicate balance between state interests in effective prosecution and the individual's fundamental rights, emphasizing the need for robust legal safeguards to prevent coercive practices.
Ultimately, this analysis aims to contribute to the discourse on criminal justice reform by suggesting ways in which the legal systems of India and the United States can learn from each other to strengthen the protection against compelled self-incrimination.
