M P Lathif v. State of Kerala: Accused's Silence Not Guilty Plea
evidence ailet advanced real_caseAILET aspirants, recall M P Lathif v State of Kerala (2006)? Supreme Court ruled 2:1 that an accused's silence can't be taken as an admission of guilt. This decision changed the game for accused persons in police custody. The majority judgment held Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects the right against self-incrimination, even if the accused remains silent. But what if the police force the accused to sign a statement or give a confession? Do you agree or disagree with the decision? Don't you think it gives an accused person an unfair advantage? Let's discuss this landmark case in the context of AILET.
1 comments
1 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Yaaar, in MPLathif v. State of Kerala, SC clarified that accused's silence is not equivalent to admission of guilt. It can't be presumed that because a person remains silent during cross-examination, they are admitting to the allegations. Silence is a constitutional right and can't be used against the accused. It's a landmark judgment on Article 20(3) and is still applicable.