Question:

Legal Principle: Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Fact Situation: Ubaid refuses to give a sample of his blood after he is stopped by the police for driving over the speed limit. The police suspect him to be driving under the influence of alcohol, which is prohibited under the law.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Show Hint

Article 20(3) protects only an accused from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence against themselves. Physical evidence like blood samples is not covered, and mere suspicion does not make one an "accused".
Updated On: Aug 14, 2025
  • Ubaid is protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample.
  • Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) as he was under the influence of alcohol.
  • Ubaid is not protected by Article 20(3) in his refusal to give a blood sample since he is not accused of any offence yet.
  • Refusal to give a blood sample is a crime and Ubaid must be punished for the same.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation


Step 1: Understanding the scope of Article 20(3)
- Article 20(3) provides protection against self-incrimination.
- It applies only when three conditions are met:
\quad (i) The person is accused of an offence.
\quad (ii) There is compulsion to give evidence.
\quad (iii) The evidence sought is testimonial in nature and against himself.
Step 2: Applying the facts to the principle
- In this case, Ubaid was only suspected of driving under the influence; no formal accusation had been made.
- At the stage of suspicion, Article 20(3) does not apply because he is not yet an "accused".
- Refusing to give a blood sample at this stage is not protected by the constitutional safeguard.
Step 3: Legal reasoning on physical evidence
- Blood samples are considered physical evidence, not testimonial statements.
- The bar under Article 20(3) applies mainly to testimonial compulsion, not to providing physical evidence like fingerprints, handwriting samples, or blood tests.
Step 4: Conclusion
- Since Ubaid is not formally accused and the request is for physical evidence, Article 20(3) protection does not apply.
- Therefore, the correct and legally sound option is (3).
\[ \boxed{\text{No protection under Article 20(3) as he is not yet accused of an offence.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions