| Abstract: |
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), replacing the century-old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), introduced sweeping reforms to India's criminal procedural framework. Among the most constitutionally contentious provisions is Section 176, which confers upon investigating officers broad powers to compel accused persons to provide biological samples, bodily measurements, and other forensic material. This paper examines whether such forensic mandates transgress the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Drawing upon the interpretive trajectory from State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad through Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the paper analyses the foundational distinction between 'testimonial compulsion' and 'physical evidence,' the doctrine of personal liberty under Article 21, and the tension between investigative efficiency and individual rights. The author argues that while Section 176 BNSS may withstand constitutional scrutiny regarding non-testimonial physical evidence, certain of its applications require courts to revisit and refine the boundaries of self-incrimination jurisprudence in the digital-forensic age. |
