THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THE LAW OF EVIDENCE UNDER THE BSA: A CONSTITUTIONAL APPRAISAL

The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental safeguard against coercive investigative practices and an essential component of a fair criminal justice system. In India, this protection is expressly guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which prohibits compelling an accused person to be a witness against themselves. The enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, represents a significant stage in the restructuring of India’s evidentiary framework. Although the BSA retains important safeguards concerning involuntary confessions and confessions made to police officers, its operation must be examined alongside constitutional guarantees and judicial interpretations of testimonial compulsion. This paper critically examines the relationship between Article 20(3) and the relevant provisions of the BSA, particularly Sections 22 and 23. It analyses the distinction between testimonial evidence and physical evidence, the admissibility of information leading to discovery, and the constitutional implications of modern investigative techniques. Through an examination of landmark judicial decisions, the paper evaluates whether the existing evidentiary framework adequately protects individual autonomy, dignity and procedural fairness. It argues that the effectiveness of the right against self- incrimination depends not merely on statutory exclusions but also on meaningful judicial scrutiny, safeguards against coercion and a constitutionally consistent approach to emerging forms of evidence.