Delhi HC Quashes CBI Notice to Retired Judge, holds accused can't be compelled to furnish personal information under section 91 CrPC

A Bench of the Delhi High Court, while dismissing the CBI's petition, affirmed that Section 91 CrPC is meant for the production of specific, pre-existing documents or things and does not authorise the investigating agency to require an accused person to create or compile information based on personal knowledge.

The case arose from a notice issued by the CBI to Justice Quddusi during the course of a corruption probe, seeking details of mobile phone numbers used by him, particulars of bank accounts including statements for a specified period, and information relating to drivers and domestic staff.

Justice Quddusi had challenged the notice before the Special Judge (CBI), contending that it violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

The Special Judge accepted the objection and set aside the notice, prompting the CBI to approach the High Court.

While examining the scope of Section 91 CrPC, the High Court observed that the provision empowers courts and investigating officers to summon the production of documents or things already in existence. It does not permit compelling an accused to apply his mind, recall facts from memory, and prepare a written statement containing information sought by the prosecution. Such an exercise, the Court held, would amount to testimonial compulsion.

The Court further noted that the notice issued by the CBI was, in substance, a questionnaire seeking information rather than a direction to produce identifiable documents. By requiring the accused to list mobile numbers, bank accounts, and names of employees, the agency was effectively asking him to create evidence against himself, which is impermissible in law.

Reiterating settled constitutional principles, the High Court held that the right against self-incrimination applies even at the stage of investigation. If the investigating agency requires such information, it has alternative lawful avenues available including interrogating the accused under Section 161 CrPC, where the accused retains the right to remain silent, or obtaining records directly from independent sources such as banks and telecom service providers by issuing notices to those third parties.

The Court rejected the CBI's contention that the information sought was merely non-incriminatory or public in nature, observing that investigative convenience cannot override constitutional safeguards.

It also relied on binding Supreme Court precedent to reiterate that Section 91 CrPC, on its true construction, does not apply to an accused person in the manner sought by the CBI.

Finding no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning, the High Court dismissed the CBI's petition and upheld the order quashing the notice.

The CBI was represented by Atul Guleria, Special Public Prosecutor, along with Aryan Rakesh and Prashant Upadhyay, Advocates. Justice I.M. Quddusi was represented by Mr. Prashant Chari and Ayush Jindal, Advocates.(ANI)