Duvvada Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2026

The petitioner, Duvvada Srinivas, challenged repeated notices issued to him under Section 35(3) BNSS during an ongoing criminal investigation.

The petitioner contended that he had already cooperated with the investigation and had undergone approximately nine and a half hours of interrogation.

He relied upon his medical condition and argued that repeated physical appearance before the Investigating Officer was unnecessary.

He also alleged that the criminal allegations were vague and politically motivated.

The State opposed the petition and maintained that the petitioner had not fully cooperated with the investigation.

According to the State, the petitioner had allegedly given evasive answers to material questions.

The State argued that the Investigating Officer was entitled to seek further clarification and conduct necessary interrogation.

The High Court therefore examined the relationship between the accused's constitutional right to silence and the Investigating Officer's statutory power to require appearance during investigation.

The Court also considered whether repeated notices under Section 35(3) BNSS could become oppressive or arbitrary.

The Court emphasized that investigation must remain effective while simultaneously respecting the constitutional protections available to the accused.

The High Court held that the right to silence under Article 20(3) is a substantive constitutional guarantee.

However, the Court clarified that this right does not mean that an accused can avoid every lawful requirement to participate in an investigation.

The Court distinguished between the right against self-incrimination and the obligation to appear before the Investigating Officer when lawfully required.

The Investigating Officer may require an accused to appear for purposes such as identification, clarification or confrontation with material already collected.

At the same time, Section 35(3) BNSS cannot become a mechanism for endless or purposeless summoning.

The Court held that investigative discretion must be exercised reasonably and proportionately.

The Court emphasized that Article 21 includes the right to a fair and speedy investigation.

Where an accused has substantially cooperated and there are genuine health concerns, the investigation should be conducted in a humane, time-bound and proportionate manner.

The Court declined to completely prohibit further investigation or quash the proceedings.

Instead, it adopted a balanced approach.

The Investigating Officer was directed to prepare a schedule specifying the dates and times on which the petitioner would be required to appear.

The schedule was to be served upon the petitioner in advance.

The Court also permitted the petitioner to appear with Legal Aid Counsel.

The Investigating Officer was directed to complete the investigation within a reasonable timeframe and file the appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

The High Court therefore disposed of the writ petition without imposing costs.

Right to silence: The judgment strongly reaffirms that Article 20(3) protects an accused from being compelled to provide incriminating testimony against himself. The Court nevertheless refused to equate this protection with a complete right to avoid the investigative process.

Appearance versus self-incrimination: The Court draws an important constitutional distinction. Being required to appear before an Investigating Officer does not necessarily amount to being compelled to incriminate oneself.

Section 35(3) BNSS: The provision provides an alternative to arrest in appropriate circumstances. Its purpose is to secure the accused's participation in investigation without unnecessarily resorting to arrest.

Limits on police power: Although police have investigative discretion, that discretion is not unlimited. Repeated notices without a discernible investigative purpose can become oppressive.

Article 21 protection: The Court recognized that fair investigation is part of the constitutional protection of life and personal liberty. Investigation cannot continue indefinitely without justification.

Health concerns: The Court gave importance to bona fide medical concerns raised by the petitioner and emphasized that investigative procedures should be humane and proportionate.

Balanced approach: Rather than accepting either extreme position, the Court adopted a middle course. It did not allow the accused to completely evade investigation, nor did it permit unrestricted repeated summoning.

Advance schedule: Requiring the Investigating Officer to provide a schedule gives the accused certainty about when attendance is required and prevents arbitrary or unpredictable summons.

Legal assistance: Allowing the petitioner to appear with Legal Aid Counsel provides an additional safeguard while preserving the investigation.

Speedy investigation: The ruling extends the broader principle of speedy justice to the investigative stage itself. An investigation should not become an indefinite burden on an accused.

No absolute immunity: The judgment makes clear that Article 20(3) protects against compelled self-incrimination, not against every legitimate investigative procedure.

No unlimited police discretion: Conversely, the State cannot rely on investigative discretion as a justification for repeatedly calling an accused without explaining or demonstrating the continuing necessity.

Practical significance: The ruling provides a useful framework for courts dealing with disputes concerning repeated Section 35(3) BNSS notices.

Broader constitutional significance: The decision attempts to maintain equilibrium between effective criminal investigation and the accused's constitutional protections under Articles 20(3) and 21.

BNSS-era importance: Since Section 35(3) BNSS is the successor to Section 41-A CrPC, the judgment is significant for understanding how courts may regulate police notices and appearance requirements under the new criminal procedure regime.