Which one of the following fundamental rights has **not** been provide

Which one of the following fundamental rights has **not** been provided to a person?

Protection against prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once

To refuse to give his/her sample of handwriting as evidence to support a prosecution against him/her

To act as a witness against himself/herself

Right not to be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CAPF – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment. Article 20(1) deals with ex post facto laws (Option D). Article 20(2) deals with double jeopardy (Option A). Article 20(3) deals with self-incrimination, stating that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This grants the right *not* to be compelled to give incriminating testimony. The Supreme Court has held that providing physical evidence like handwriting samples or fingerprints does not fall under the category of being “compelled to be a witness against himself” because it is not testimonial compulsion. Therefore, a person does not have a fundamental right under Article 20(3) to refuse to give a handwriting sample as evidence.
Option C, “To act as a witness against himself/herself,” describes an action that is not a fundamental right; rather, the right is *not to be compelled* into this action. However, option B is a specific type of refusal, which courts have explicitly ruled is *not* a fundamental right protected by Article 20(3). Hence, the right *to refuse* a handwriting sample is not provided as a fundamental right.

– Article 20 provides protection against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination.
– The right against self-incrimination (Art 20(3)) protects against *testimonial* compulsion.
– Providing handwriting samples is generally considered non-testimonial evidence by courts.

The interpretation of Article 20(3) regarding physical evidence has evolved through case law. The phrase “to be a witness” has been interpreted narrowly to mean giving oral or documentary evidence of a testimonial character. The right to a fair trial (Option C, in a different interpretation) is considered an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, but the phrasing in C is confusing. The right to die is not included in Article 21, as held by the Supreme Court in cases like Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab.

More similar MCQ questions for Exam preparation:-