The Supreme Court has clarified that cooperation during an investigation should not be equated with an accused being compelled to confess. The ruling addressed a recurring misinterpretation by law enforcement and judicial officers regarding the extent of cooperation required from individuals under scrutiny. This observation came in the context of a case where a police inspector and a magistrate were found guilty of contempt for defying an interim anticipatory bail order by arresting an accused.
The apex court emphasized that the refusal of an accused to confess does not imply non-cooperation. It further elaborated that no legal provision mandates an individual to self-incriminate during an investigation. A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta pointed out that such actions undermine fundamental principles of justice, particularly the constitutional right against self-incrimination as enshrined in Article 20(3).
The case arose from allegations that involved a civil dispute, and the court found it particularly inappropriate for the police to pursue confessions as a metric for cooperation. The bench also criticized the judicial officer who granted the remand despite the accused having interim protection, highlighting procedural lapses that led to contempt charges.