Accused's Right To Silence Can't Be Stretched To Avoid Investigation, But Police Cannot Resort To Endless Summoning: AP High Court
There is a fine distinction between the right not to incriminate oneself and the duty to appear, Court held.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused's right to remain silent during interrogation is a substantive constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, but it does not absolve the accused of every civic and legal obligation to participate in an investigation when lawfully called upon to do so.For context, Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an accused's right to remain silent during interrogation is a substantive constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, but it does not absolve the accused of every civic and legal obligation to participate in an investigation when lawfully called upon to do so.
For context, Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permits the Investigating Officer to require an accused to appear through a notice instead of arresting the person where arrest is not necessary.
The provision, however, cannot be used either to harass an accused through repeated, purposeless summons or to enable an accused to evade legitimate investigation.
The case arose from a challenge by Duvvada Srinivas, a former YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) member who served as a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, to repeated notices issued to him under Section 35(3) of the BNSS during an ongoing criminal investigation.
A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao examined the scope of the accused's right to silence and the power of the Investigating Officer to require his appearance during investigation. The Court observed:
“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. There exists a fine but discernible distinction between the right not to incriminate oneself and the duty to appear, when required, before the Investigating Officer for the purposes of identification, clarification, or confrontation with material already gathered. The former is inviolable, the latter is a reasonable regulatory requirement necessary for the investigation to reach its logical culmination.”
The petitioner submitted that he had already cooperated with the investigation and undergone nearly nine and a half hours of interrogation. He also relied on his medical condition and contended that repeated physical attendance was unnecessary and arbitrary. He further contended that “the allegations are demonstrably vague, politically motivated, and bereft of any cogent material.”
The State opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner had not fully cooperated and had allegedly given evasive replies to material questions. It contended that the Investigating Officer was entitled to determine whether further questioning or clarification was necessary.
On the repeated notices, the Court held that their mere issuance does not automatically make them mala fide or arbitrary, since determining what further material, clarification or confrontation is required falls within investigative discretion. However, that discretion cannot become a licence for endless summoning.
Emphasising that Article 21 encompasses the right to a speedy and fair investigation, the Court observed:
“The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, necessarily encompasses within its ambit the right to a speedy and fair investigation, free from vexatious or protracted proceedings. Where an accused has already cooperated substantially, and more so where there exist bona fide concerns regarding his health, the Investigating Officer is duty-bound to conduct the remaining investigation in a manner that is humane, time-bound, and proportionate to the requirement of the case...investigative discretion cannot become a license for endless or repetitive summoning without any discernible purpose or timeline.”
Instead of quashing the proceedings or completely restraining further investigation, the Court adopted a middle course. It directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and the Investigating Officer to complete it within a reasonable timeframe.
The Investigating Officer was directed to prepare a schedule and serve it on the petitioner in advance, specifying the dates and times of his appearance. The Court also permitted the petitioner to appear with a Legal Aid Counsel.
The Court observed that “such a course gives due effect to the constitutional rights of the Petitioner under Articles 20(3) and 21, while simultaneously preserving the statutory authority and discretion of the investigating agency under 'the BNSS.,.”
Accordingly, the Court directed complete the investigation and file the appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate, without unnecessary or repetitive summoning.
The High Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Duvvada Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 17890 of 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: G.L. Nageswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Home