The Right to Silence in Criminal Law: A Shield for Justice or a Loophole for the Guilty?

Paper Code: AIJACLAV22RP2025

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: Nov 19, 2025

Citation: Ms. Amulya Raj, “The Right to Silence in Criminal Law: A Shield for Justice or a Loophole for the Guilty?", 5, AIJACLA, 240, 240-249 (2025), <https://www.aequivic.in/post/the-right-to-silence-in-criminal-law-a-shield-for-justice-or-a-loophole-for-the-guilty>

Author Details: Ms. Amulya Raj, 2nd year BALLB Student, Manikchand Pahade Law College, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

Download PDF

Abstract

The privilege against self-incrimination is an important legal guarantee by which the individual is protected from being obliged to provide evidence that may result in their being convicted. In countries like the United States, Canada, and South Africa, this principle is strictly observed, while in the United Kingdom and Ireland, the courts are allowed to infer from the accused's silence. While primarily designed to secure the presumption of innocence and excludable testimonies, the right to keep silent has received opposing views, with critics focusing on how criminals can take advantage of this during the investigations, especially in the cases of organized crime and terrorism.

As this paper will illustrate, the paper mainly reviews how the right to silence went via the stages of its historical evolution. It presents different courts' interpretations and the effects of the junction between the fight for crime and police power misuse. To be specific, cases that influenced the change in the judiciary's perspective on this legal measure include Miranda v. Arizona (U.S.), State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh (India), and Datar Singh v. State of Punjab (India). The paper then gives specific situations where the accused can find protection against the shifting of the burden of proof.

This right is frequently a victim of harsh police tactics used to extract a confession, and thus, the right to silence still exists only on paper. According to one survey, many people are not aware of their right to remain silent, which is why the importance of public legal education is even more crucial today. Specific legal reforms must be carried out, like the compulsory recording of interrogation sessions, the establishment of judicial watch, and the provision of robust safeguards for the suspects in a vulnerable capacity, to ensure that there is justice and to keep the balance between liberty and public order.

Right to Silence, Self-Incrimination, Criminal Justice, Legal Safeguards, Judicial Interpretations, Law Enforcement Practices, and Procedural Reforms are the terms connected with all legal aspects of the rights of a suspect.

Keywords:- Right to Silence, Self-Incrimination, Criminal Justice, Legal Safeguards, Judicial Interpretations, Law Enforcement Practices.

Paper Code: AIJACLAV22RP2025

I.                   Introduction

The right to silence is a cornerstone of criminal law, ensuring that individuals are not compelled to incriminate themselves. While widely recognized, its application varies across jurisdictions, raising questions about whether it serves justice or hinders prosecutions.[1] This principle allows accused persons to refrain from answering questions that may be used against them in court. In India, legal representation is a guaranteed right, ensuring that even those who cannot afford an attorney are provided one by the state. The origins of this right trace back to medieval England, where coercive judicial practices, such as the infamous ex-officio oath in the Star Chamber and High Commission, forced suspects to testify without formal charges, often under the threat of torture. Over time, the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare (no one is bound to accuse themselves) emerged as a foundational legal doctrine, shaping modern protections against compelled self-incrimination. While the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution upholds this right, it requires individuals to assert it explicitly. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that once a suspect requests legal counsel, police interrogation must cease, reinforcing the broader principle that individuals must not be forced to testify against themselves. This doctrine remains a crucial component of contemporary criminal justice systems, ensuring that legal proceedings uphold the fundamental principles of fairness and justice.[2]

The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) arose after Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13, 1963, for the alleged kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old girl. Despite circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime, Miranda confessed after a two-hour police interrogation, unaware of his right to remain silent. His conviction was later challenged, leading to the establishment of the famous ‘Miranda Rights’ requiring law enforcement to inform suspects of their right to silence. The trial court, however, did not overturn the confession, and Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of 20 years of hard labor. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the sentence, finding that no rights of the accused were infringed. Consequently, the case was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, thus creating the basis for an important legal decision on police investigation and the right to a legal counselor.[3]

II.                  Key Facets of the Right to Remain Silent Under the Indian Constitution

1.       Meaning and Importance of Burden of Proof

The principle of burden of proof in criminal law refers to the legal duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt of which the one who has been charged with the crime is believed to be guilty. “The burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution, ensuring that an accused cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves.” The act of burden of proof is closely linked to the right to be silent, as it is aimed at the defense so that the accused is not involved in the process of delivering the evidence to himself. The government, through the prosecutor, must prove the guilt of the accused by providing evidence, and a person being charged is not obliged to testify or confess his guilt. Specifically, Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution[4] Guarantees that an accused "shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself". Part 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads, "Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist", also upholds it. Part 102 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 States that the burden of proof is on the party that claims a right (e.g., the prosecution in a criminal case).[5]

2.       Counterarguments: Does the Right to Silence Allow Criminals to Evade Justice?

The rule of silence exists primarily to keep individuals from saying anything that would hurt their case. Critics argue that an absolute right to silence can be exploited by offenders to evade accountability, particularly in cases involving organized crime and terrorism. Prosecutors often face challenges in securing convictions due to a lack of statements from the accused. In countries where the right to silence is legally protected, prosecutions often face difficulties in getting people to testify or provide evidence.

Moreover, one of the major criticisms has come from the UK, where the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was the first to allow the courts to draw adverse inferences from an accused's silence. It was under the opinion that innocent persons would most likely remain silent if they are scared to do so or on the advice of their attorney, while those guilty and thus without fear would provide a statement of facts. In R v. Lambert [2001] UKHL 37, Lord Mustill stated that a defendant's silence alone could not suffice as a ground for conviction, yet it could be considered as an additional piece of evidence when combined with other factors.[6]

Aside from this, scholars such as Paul Roberts reckon that it may thwart the interests of justice if the right to remain silent is absolute. He indicates the evidence in his essay Criminal Justice: The Adjudicatory Process" by the examples of organized crime and terrorism to show how the criminals use silence to hinder authorities from finding crucial information.[7]

Although these worries are still present, there is a lot of legislation stating how silence can be maintained as a right, which makes it indeed worth preserving:

a.        Presumption of Innocence: The prosecutor has a case to prove, and the accused need not be his accuser.

b.       Risk of Coerced Confessions: Any deprivation of the right to remain silent may constitute a potential use of force against the accused, which could compromise fair trial principles.[8]

Thus, while concerns regarding the misuse of the right to silence are not unfounded, eroding this safeguard could lead to greater injustices, including wrongful convictions and coerced confessions. Instead of diluting the right, reforms such as mandatory video-recorded interrogations and judicial oversight can address potential abuses while preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The right to silence is not just a domestic legal principle but is also enshrined in constitutional law and international human rights norms. However, its effectiveness depends on public awareness and law enforcement practices, as the following survey demonstrates.

Survey Insights on the Right to Silence

A small-scale survey of 23 respondents revealed significant gaps in understanding and enforcement regarding the right to remain silent.

·         Alarmingly, over half of respondents (52.2%) were unaware of their right to silence,    highlighting a significant gap in legal literacy. Only 21.7% reported learning about this right through formal education, suggesting a need for greater public awareness initiatives.

• Law Enforcement Practices: 56.5% believed that police officers fail to inform individuals of this right, and only 8.7% felt officers always do.

• Exercise of the Right: While 26.1% stated they would remain silent until legal representation, 60.9% were unsure about invoking this right.

• Barriers to Silence: The main deterrents were pressure from authorities (56.5%), lack of awareness (30.4%), and fear of police (13%).

• Legal Consequences: 30.4% felt that remaining silent makes an accused look guilty, while 26.1% believed it protects their rights.

• Stronger Enforcement: 65.2% supported stricter enforcement, while 56.5% believed law enforcement should face penalties for failing to inform individuals of their rights.

These findings highlight the urgent need for legal education, stricter enforcement, and increased public awareness to ensure that individuals can effectively exercise their right to remain silent.^[9]

3. Judicial Interpretation: Key Case Law

(A) State of Bihar v Basawan Singh (AIR 1958 SC 500)

In this particular case, the Supreme Court directly discussed the question of burden of proof in a criminal trial and emphasized the key point of law that a suspect is always innocent unless guilt is established. The prosecution had tried to put the burden of proof on the defendant, arguing that their silence on certain matters was an indication of their guilt. Nonetheless, the court made a firm stand that the prosecution needs to prove the sufficiency of the evidence by a standard higher than mere reasonableness, and the accused is not a party to that end of the process.

Relevance to the Right to Silence:

·         One of the possible ways of making a suspect testify was by placing the burden on the defendant, which is in contradiction with his right to remain silent under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

·         This ruling assures that the courts depend only on the independent evidence produced by the prosecution and do not draw adverse inferences from the silence of the accused.

·         By the way, the ruling is not only beneficial to the defendants since they are protected from being forced into self-incrimination, but it also contributes to the constitutional safeguards in criminal trials.[10]

(B) Datar Singh v State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 272

In Datar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court says that a suspect's silence cannot be taken as a sign of guilt.[11] The judgment plays a crucial role in reinforcing the principle that an accused’s silence cannot be equated with guilt, thereby safeguarding individuals from self-incrimination. It ensures that courts base their findings solely on strong and independent evidence presented by the prosecution rather than drawing adverse inferences from an accused’s decision to remain silent.[12]

(C) Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978 AIR 1025)

The case Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978 AIR 1025) was revisited by the Supreme Court, and it was clearly stated that the privilege against self-incrimination in Article 20(3) of India's Constitution does not only apply to the stage of the trial but also police interrogations, without any doubt. The former Chief Minister of Odisha was the main actor in this case - she, utilizing her right to silence, avoided answering questions during a corruption inquiry. That the Court confirmed that no one who is accused either formally or is under mere investigation can be forced to answer questions that are likely to incriminate himself was also the ruling of that case. The Court also explained that the provision of Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes it a crime to refuse to answer lawfully asked questions, cannot be superior to the constitutional protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. This case is a landmark decision as it not only further ensured the right to silence but also upheld the fact that Miranda v. Arizona does not have much application as it only speaks of post-arrest interrogations.[13]

(D) Vasanth Kumar Krishnappa Naik v State of Maharashtra (2015) 1 SCC 253

In the present matter, the Supreme Court upheld that an accused's silence cannot be treated as evidence of guilt. The Court thought that unless the prosecution has first established a very strong case via a prima facie case, the accused's silence cannot be used as a piece of evidence against him, even if he does not explain Section 313 Cr.P.C. The judgment upholds the fundamental principle that an accused has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to testify or disprove the charges unless the prosecution has first established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It reinforces the idea that convictions should be based solely on freely produced, trustworthy, and independent evidence rather than drawing inferences from an accused’s silence. Moreover, the case affirms that the burden of proof rests entirely with the prosecution, thereby preventing judicial overreach that could undermine the right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.[14]

Through a case where the accused was acquitted because of the inquest report being tampered with, the Supreme Court underscored the position in law that an accused's silence cannot fill the gap caused by a shred of weak prosecution evidence, consequently upholding the constitutional safeguard of the right to remain silent. While some case discussions, such as Miranda v. Arizona (1966), are detailed and provide comprehensive legal analysis, others, like Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978 AIR 1025), are summarized too briefly. The latter case, which significantly reinforced the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, deserves a more in-depth discussion to highlight its implications for custodial interrogation and protection against coercive questioning.

A uniform level of depth across case analyses would enhance the paper’s credibility and academic rigor. As McConville and Wilson argue, "Selective or inconsistent case law analysis can create gaps in legal reasoning, weakening the overall argumentative coherence" (The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process, Oxford University Press, 2002). Ensuring a balanced and thorough examination of all cases will strengthen the argument and provide a more holistic perspective on judicial interpretations of the right to silence.

3.       Exceptions to the Burden of Proof Rule

The burden of proof required to be satisfied will remain with the prosecution; meanwhile, there are exceptions set out in the law that can cause this burden to be switched to the defendant in particular instances.

·         Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act): As per Section 35, the accused person can be put in a difficult situation to prove they did not handle the paraphernalia associated with drugs.[15]

·         Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: In the absence of any evidence, if a public servant is seen with property that fairly admits of no explanation besides that of being stolen, then it shall be suspected to be ill-gotten unless the servant can otherwise prove it.[16]

·         Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: The accused is going to be held unconditionally responsible for the acts, and the accused has to disprove the prosecution by bringing overwhelming evidence that no dowry transaction has ever taken place.[17]

Provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code

·         (CrPC) Section 161 (2): This section provides an indefeasible right against self-incrimination, i.e., they have a right to remain silent. This right is a combination of an arrestee’s need for privacy plus the police’s need for information, and it is a necessary part of our criminal law.

·         Section 313(3): This particular section declares that the accused is not under any duty to answer questions and that the court shall not draw any adverse inference from the accused's silence.

·         Section 315(1)(b): This section requires the prosecution to refrain from making any comments on how a defendant deals with his or her right to silence or does not testify, or the court generally should not make any comments criticizing the choice of not giving evidence.[18]

Why These Exceptions Exist:

These laws are related to serious crimes, which can sometimes be difficult to supply evidence of through normal channels. In any case, the suspect does not have to be part of the self-incrimination of himself. It assures the maintenance of the right to silence. Courts have always maintained:

·         The prosecution is required to meet the reasonable doubt standard.

·         The accused is not to be convicted only because they remain silent.

·         The presumption of innocence is the preservation of people against wrong results of the court.

However, specific limited exemptions under Article 20(3) still put the burden of proof on the defendant in these cases.[19] These laws deal with grave offenses where evidence may be harder to obtain through normal means. However, even in these cases, the accused cannot be forced to self-incriminate, ensuring compliance with the right to silence.

Reforms to Strengthen the Right to Remain Silent

Despite legal protections, many individuals choose to talk to the police mainly because they are forced to or for psychological reasons, for example, police interrogation tactics, psychological pressure, and also the lack of consciousness of them being in charge of their defense. The following reforms are necessary. To at least keep the true right to silence in a meaningful sense, the following kinds of reforms are needed:

a.       Mandatory Videotaping of Interrogations

The practice of recording can make it impossible to apply mental or physical violence. In New South Wales, recording was used to eliminate false confessions (Dixon, 2007). However, this procedure is most effective only when the whole situation of interrogation is videotaped and the investigators do not manipulate the real record. The entire interrogation must be recorded to avoid the selective presentation of evidence. Both the suspect and the officer should be visible to prevent bias from camera angles. The recordings should only be used for the judge to provide him/herself with a clear observation of how the suspect reacted (confessed but without police pressure) to the evidence.

b.       Restricting False Evidence and Deceptive Tactics

The police sometimes use strategies of badness, falsely introducing the issues during an investigation (such as telling them those who have confessed their crimes leave hair through their apartments) to terrorize the suspects until they talk and confess. This method: In the case of persons with mental impairment or otherwise vulnerable, it becomes very risky. The creators of this approach are losing trust in society as well. It is a fact that these activities should be forbidden/not used on those suspects who are young or with mental health issues (Weisselberg, 2010).[2

c.  Limiting Minimization Techniques and Implied Promises

Police are no strangers to the use of soft words, and they tend to inject less culpable explanations into the conversation to make a suspect confess. The main flaw with it is that such interrogations. This can lead to false recognition after the happening, where the guilty ones twist the facts to police instructions. Sometimes, suspects pin down other people erroneously because of police pressure. The enforcement must be educated in using the reality-based approach in questioning instead of manipulation.

d.       Protecting Vulnerable Suspects (Juveniles & Mentally Ill Individuals)

Minors are the least able people to protect themselves and, according to data, can be the easiest victims [of self-incrimination] (Juveniles and mentally impaired suspects are at the highest risk of self-incrimination). Therefore:

·         They need to have their attorneys present before questioning. Therefore, the Police must inform them just after taking them into custody.

·         It is necessary to train the police to recognize mental disorders and act according to the interrogation techniques instead of the said.

·         Double-blind interrogation (without allowing the police officers to know case details) should be implemented so that it should be a suggestive question-free zone, thus lowering the risk of false confessions.

e. Setting Clear Limits on Interrogation Duration

Lengthy interrogations very often cause tiredness, and there is a risk that the person, just to get rid of the pressure, might falsely confess something that has never been done. One of the false confessions is the one after a long time of questioning without a break. Legal regulations ought to limit the time and guarantee suspects food, rest, and bathroom breaks so that they can think properly.

f. Strengthening Prosecutorial Oversight on Interrogations

The non-compliant Lawyers should also adopt a new stance and not even consider forced confessions. The Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office had stopped the prosecution of cases based on officers having lied in the past (Bibas, 2010). This kind of supervision also should be carried out: It’s required that the confessions are reviewed by the prosecutor, who would establish whether coercion was used. When it comes to ethical principles, trickery should be treated as a serious offense by the officers.

g. Implementing Independent Interrogation Monitoring

By separating interrogation monitoring from law enforcement, the bias that could result from the police being protective of their own or not sensitive to bias can be averted. One possibility is to have independent justices of the peace conduct the interrogation, similar to the colonial-era practices (Amar & Lettow,1995). The application of this technique could also be applied to protect the weaker side of law offenders from being demanded to make confessions by their interrogators. If there's no way of doing this, then the best compromise would be to implement external examinations of interrogations that are solely conducted by auditors.

Implications: Certainly, these changes will make it possible that the right to remain silent will not be just theoretical but will be implemented. By recording interrogations, using the ban on indirect tactics-ban, protecting the suspects, limiting the interrogation period, and overseeing improvement, law enforcement can reduce the number of wrongful convictions and, at the same time, the public's perception of the criminal justice system.[21]

"Global Perspectives on the Right to Remain Silent: A Comparative Analysis of Legal Protections Against Self-Incrimination"

The right to remain silent is a fundamental legal protection against self-incrimination, ensuring that individuals are not compelled to testify against themselves during legal proceedings. While many countries uphold this right, the strength and enforcement of its protections vary. Below are examples of countries with robust legal frameworks safeguarding this right:

1. United States

Fifth Amendment: In the U.S. Constitution, it is written that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".[22]

Miranda Rights: Based on Miranda vs. Arizona, law enforcement officers are ordered to give the defendants information about their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel at the time of the arrest.

2. Canada

Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The 11(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms embodies the statute of not having to be a witness against oneself.[23]

13th Section: Moreover, regarding self-incrimination, section 13 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures the witness's right against self-incrimination by prohibiting his/her testimony from being used against him/her in the subsequent proceedings.[24]

3. United Kingdom

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE): The Police are strictly monitored by the act, and they are required to notify the individual of their right to silence (R. v. Lambert, [2001] UKHL 37).

Adverse Inferences: Establishing the fact that silence in response to the court may lead to adverse comments or treatment of the accused is by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.[25]

4. European Union

Directive 2012/13/EU: Expects each EU member state to notify suspects of their right to remain silent.[26]

5. Australia

Common Law Protections: Contrary to popular belief, the right to silence is a part of the Common law, and as such, suspects are to be cautioned.[27]

6. New Zealand

Bill of Rights Act 1990: The fourth section of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 states that individuals have the right to say no comments when arrested or detained.[28]

7. South Africa

Bill of Rights: The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the supreme law of the land. Section 35 directly guarantees the right to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to make a confession or admission. With the help of this section, both the accused and the witness can speak or remain silent.[29]

8. Ireland

Constitutional Protections: Constitutional rights, however, can have a counteracting effect in specific laws as the negative inference principle can be applied to the facts of a case.[30]

9. Netherlands

Many European countries, including the Netherlands and Switzerland, have procedural safeguards protecting the right to silence.[31]

10. Switzerland

Swiss Criminal Procedure Code: Article 158, which gives suspects the right to silence.[32]

It's important to note that while these countries have strong legal frameworks protecting the right to remain silent, the practical enforcement and public awareness of these rights can vary. Regular training for law enforcement and public legal education is crucial to ensure these rights are effectively upheld.

The Supreme Court of India extended the right to remain silent as a right of the accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which is a principle of practice protecting individuals from self-incrimination that became the law of the land. The run of the case was that Ms. Nandini Satpathy, a former Chief Minister of Odisha, was the one who was summoned to appear before the investigating committee in a corruption case. However, she refused to answer certain questions, exercising her right to remain silent. As a result, she was deemed uncooperative under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the charge of not answering the inquiry.[33]

The judges decided in her favor, stating that an accused or suspect has the right to remain silent during an investigation and that coerced questioning is a violation of Article 20(3). The judgment emphasized that if the accused is not granted protection under Article 20(3), even the investigator may struggle to pursue a fair investigation. She argued that she was not formally accused and, therefore, could not be compelled to answer.[34]

Conclusion

Holding on to the right to remain silent is a valid and most important guiding principle that promotes the essence of a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and the protection against self-incrimination. This has been achieved through several landmark judicial rulings in different jurisdictions, Miranda v. Arizona in the United States and Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani in India being the most famous of them. The right to silence has the power to ensure that coercion is avoided and that confessions are made of the volition of the perpetrator, therefore, it significantly advances the integrity of the criminal justice system globally.

On the other hand, the fact that the right to remain silent is not absolute is clearly shown in the case of R v. Lambert [2001] UKHL 37. According to some people, the practice of silence provides the offenders, especially the ones who are affiliated with organized crime and terrorism, with the opportunity to escape punishment by refusing to talk about the main data. More specifically, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK) captures this anxiety by giving courts the power to make unfavorable inferences against the accused because of their silence. Legal scholars, including Paul Roberts, have also expressed fears that the existence of an absolute right to silence may be counterproductive for prosecution.

Nevertheless, dropping the right to silence would be a cause of producing statements at gunpoint, convicting innocent people, and breaching human rights. Instead of trimming down this defense, reforms should enhance procedural safeguards by adopting new practices such as mandatory video-recorded interrogations, the police having to be watched by independent eyes during interrogation sessions, and more education should be given to law enforcement and the public. These measures would guarantee the right to remain silent as a shield for justice but not as a legal escape.

To sum up, even though it is true to worry about the right to remain silent being abused, its ability to keep innocent people out of jail is more important than the potential disadvantages. Going forward, policymakers and legal institutions must prioritize procedural safeguards such as increased legal awareness, mandatory legal representation, and strict oversight of interrogations to ensure that the right to silence remains a shield for justice rather than a loophole for the guilty.

[1] Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution

[2] Content Team, 'Right to Silence under Indian Constitution' (DeFacto Law, 4 August 2024) https://www.defactolaw.in/post/right-to-silence-under-indian-constitution#viewer-o6fn3849 accessed 7 March 2025.

[3] Daniel Moskowitz, 'History of Miranda Rights: Why You Have the Right to Remain Silent' (8 August 2018) HistoryNet https://www.historynet.com/scotus-101-why-you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent/ accessed 6 March 2025.

[4] Indian Constitution, Article 20(3)

[5] Part 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states that the burden of proof is on the party that claims a right (e.g., the prosecution in a criminal case) (State of Bihar v Basawan Singh AIR 1958 SC 500)

[6] Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK) and R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 AC 545

[7] Paul Roberts (ed), Theoretical Foundations of Criminal Trial Procedure (Routledge 2014)

[8] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 14(3)(g)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III)), art 11(1)

[9] Amulya Raj, Survey on Public Awareness of the Right to Silence, Google Forms (Mar. 2025), https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XzT8-nU1OSJkCztMBBrDzCkPUaO70UzJgQa13H1eZqE/edit#responses (unpublished data, on file with author).

[10] State of Bihar v Basawan Singh AIR 1958 SC 500 https://www.thelaws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=008591920000 accessed 15 March 2025

[11] Datar Singh v State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 272

[12] Datar Singh v State of Punjab (1973) Criminal Appeals Nos 4 & 5 of 1973, Appeals Nos 1020 and 1021 of 1971 (SC India, 19 December 1973) https://lextechsuite.com/Datar-Singh-Versus-State-of-Punjab-1973-12-19 accessed 22 March 2025

[13] Nandini Satpathy v P L Dani and Another [1978] AIR SC 1025 (SC) https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MzM0NjE%3D accessed 29 March 2025

[14] Vasanth Kumar Krishnappa Naik v State of Maharashtra (2015) 1 SCC 253

[15] Diya Dutta, ‘The Exception to the Golden Rule of “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”’ (Indian Legal Solution, 15 January 2020) https://journal.indianlegalsolution.com/2020/01/15/the-exception-to-the-golden-rule-of-innocent-until-proven-guilty-diya-dutta/ accessed 23 March 2025

[16]The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15302/1/pc_act%2C_1988.pdf accessed 23 March 2025

[17] Adv Nandini Natarajan, ‘Understanding Section 8A of the Dowry Prohibition Act’ (EzyLegal) https://www.ezylegal.in/blogs/understanding-section-8a-of-the-dowry-prohibition-act accessed 23 March 2025

[18] Right to Silence under Indian Constitution’ (Defacto Law) https://www.defactolaw.in/post/right-to-silence-under-indian-constitution accessed 23 March 2025

[19] India Constitution, Article 20(3) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/366712/ accessed 23 March 2025

[20] University of Pennsylvania Law Review, ‘The Right to Remain Silent’ (2010) 159 U Pa L Rev 69 file:///C:/Users/amuly/OneDrive/Documents/Desktop/The%20Right%20to%20Remain%20Silent.pdf accessed 12 March 2025

[21] University of Pennsylvania Law Review, ‘The Right to Remain Silent’ (2010) 159 U Pa L Rev 69 file:///C:/Users/amuly/OneDrive/Documents/Desktop/The%20Right%20to%20Remain%20Silent.pdf accessed 12 March 2025

[22] Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

[23] R v Hebert [1990] 2 SCR 151

[24] Dubois v The Queen [1985] 2 SCR 350

[25] Murray v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 29

[26] Case C-437/04 Commission v Italy [2006] ECR I-8205

[27] Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95 (HCA)

[28] R v Alo [2007] NZCA 211

[29] S v Zuma 1995 (2) SA 642 (CC)

[30] DPP v Finnerty [1999] 4 IR 364

[31] ECLI:NL:HR:2018:1319, Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, https://www.rechtspraak.nl/ accessed 18 March 2025

[32] BGE 138 IV 47 https://www.bger.ch/ accessed 18 March 2025

[33] Satpathy v Dani (P.L.) and Anr (1978) 2 SCC 424 (SC) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1938988/ accessed 18 March

[34] Right to Silent: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) SC’ (iPleaders, 6 January 2021) https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-silent-nandini-satpathy-v-pl-dani-1978-sc/ accessed 18 March 2025