[amp_mcq option1=”Nathu V State of UP” option2=”Ram Bharose V State of UP” option3=”Devman Upadhayaya V State of UP” option4=”Pakkala Narayan Swami V Emperor ” correct=”option1″]<\/p>\n
The correct answer is (a).<\/p>\n
In the case of Nathu v. State of UP, the Supreme Court held that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is constitutionally valid. Section 27 states that no one can be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Court held that this provision is essential for the protection of the individual’s right against self-incrimination.<\/p>\n
The other options are incorrect because they do not involve the issue of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.<\/p>\n
(b) Ram Bharose v. State of UP is a case about the admissibility of evidence. The Court held that evidence obtained through illegal means is not admissible in court.<\/p>\n
(c) Devman Upadhyaya v. State of UP is a case about the right to silence. The Court held that a person has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to answer questions by the police.<\/p>\n
(d) Pakkala Narayan Swami v. Emperor is a case about the right to counsel. The Court held that a person has the right to be represented by a lawyer during criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[amp_mcq option1=”Nathu V State of UP” option2=”Ram Bharose V State of UP” option3=”Devman Upadhayaya V State of UP” option4=”Pakkala Narayan Swami V Emperor ” correct=”option1″]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-law","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\n