Y NAGESWARA RAO Vs. COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope of the right to silence guaranteed to a person under Art.20(3) of the Constitution of India, falls for determination in this case.

(2.) The Facts: The petitioners are the members ofthe police force of State of Andhra Pradesh and were attached to No.V Town Police Station, Vijayawada, on the material date. One Muralidharan, a keralite navy man, was alleged to have died in the said police station on 17-9-1986. In view of the rise in the number of lock-up deaths in the state and the concern of the public on the issue, the Government appointed a retired district judge in G.O. Ms.No.504 dated 3-10-1986 as Commission of Enquiry under Sec.3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 (for short the Commission) to find out the circumstances leading to the death of the said Muralidharan. It appears that investigations into allegations relating to the death of the said Muralidharan were taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, CID, and a case was registered against the petitioners as Crime No.190/86 under Sec.302 read with Sec.201 IPC. In the course of the investigations the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. They were, however, released on bail by the High Court on 6-12-1986. The charge- sheet is not yet filed. While the matter stood thus, the Commission issued summons to the petitioners to appear on the date specified therein to give evidence on oath in the enquiry relating to the death of the said Muralidharan. The petitioners filed petition No.1/87 before the Commission contending that they could not be compelled to give evidence on oath in the judicial enquiry relating to the death of the said Muralidharan in the V Town Police Station, Vijayawada, as all of them were accused in the criminal proceedings and any evidence given by them before the commission would be prejudicial and detrimental to their defence in the criminal case. It was stated that any disclosure on oath by them in the enquiry would lead to complications and would deprive them of their rights as the subject matter of the enquiry before the Commission as well as the trial before the criminal court, was one and the same. It was further stated that any statements given before the Commission would provide an opportunity to the prosecution to fill ;up the gaps, if any, in their case and to improve the prosecution story before the criminal court resulting in the demolition of their defence. They claimed that they were entitled to protection against testimonial compulsion under Art.20(3) of the Constitution of India. That petition was dismissed by the Commission. The petitioners now seek a writ of mandamus directing the Commis- sion not to compel the petitioners to give evidence on oath in the enquiry relating to the death of the said. T. Mural idharan, in V.town police station, Vijayawada, on 17-9-1986, by declaring that the petitioners are entitled to immunity against testimonial compulsion under Art.20(3) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) No counter-affidavit is filed by the Government.