/} , IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR w. P. (S) No. $“S93 of 2009 m 3mm PETITIONER : Chandrabhan Prasad Gupta, aged about 34 years S/o Dhanushdhari L Prasad ’Gupta, R/o Village Guturama, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, District— Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS f RESPONDENTS 1: State of Chhattisgarh \: Through Secretary - Panchayat Department, Dau Kalyan Singh _ Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Zila Panchayat Sarguja, through Chief Executive Officer, Sarguja, District—Sarguja (C.G.) x’" 3. Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, through the Chief Executive ’ Officer, District-Sarguja (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Sarguja, District— Sarguja (C.G.) f WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W @Qj‘ i w v2“ ‘$ ¢3\CA..:. C62 I % And W.P.(S) Nos. 5593 & 5898 of 2009 (Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Sitapur Shri Y.S. District Thakur, Surguja. Advocate for the Janpad Panchayat, Present :- ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 8 day of April, 2010) Since W.P.(S) Nos.5594, 5593 & 5898 of 2009 involve the same. question of Iaw and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. In the batch of petitions, challenge is to the press release (Annexure P/1 in W.P. (S) No. 5594 of 2009) wherein the petitioners have been directed to tile affidavit as under: atmwgwstwm ti m anmwtmmmw HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BfLASPUR WRIT PETITION (SI NO.5594 OF 2009 PETITIONER Shallesh Kumar Gupta Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others gigg‘ g ma gg. w¢ §§m§gmw§£§w$§ guiai? m§z§\§¢.@%m§§m %\i§§§$§gdg£& %4&%: jgdwwwmuwwmwwgmi w.g awmam % g A4a§we§u mm$§mm£mq§ _ g gggdma w» ma wwnaawgaggw. wgrwd @mEQgaq §§m§§~§$§ #g%§§w‘$§z .$§ egg § Agmimzv m$§ gadi g$%§§@§m§§ gim§§§m§i$§§ ggwawwggg §%.§w&§& gngmzaam? §a£a~§ @iggiiiw.$g& g a magig g A§.$_m.%.v $4 igQEH. £%\I in absence of the affidavit as afore-stated it was observed that First information Report may be lodged. Shri Thakur, teamed counsel appearing for the Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, District Surguaj submits that it is true that press release was issued, however, there is no intention to pass any order on the basis of the said press release and the respondent authorities are not insisting or directing any of the petitioner to give such affidavit owning the fact that forged or fabricated documents, have been flied by them. The Bench of 8 Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in M.P Sharma & others v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and others1, while considering the scope of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India observed as under : “(9) In view of the above back— ground, there is no inherent reason to construe the ambit of this fundamental right as comprising a very wide range. Nor would it-be legitimate to confine it to the barely literal meaning of the words used, since it is a recognized doctrine that when appropriate a constitutional provision has to be liberally construed, so as to advance the intendment thereof and to prevent its circumvention. Analysing the terms in which this right has been declared in our Constitution, it may be said to consist of the following components (1) lt is a right pertaining to a person “accused of an offence"; (2) It is a protection against “compulsion to be a witness”; and (3) It is a protection against such compulsion resulting in his giving evidence “against himself". A 1 AIR 1954 sc 300: . g 6. Such an act of the respondent No.2 compelling the petitioners to file an affidavit against themselves amounts to violation of fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, as has been clarified by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. ‘7. ln view of foregoing, the press release is quashed, as the same shall not be given effect to. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, if so advised. Needless to say that it is for the parties to take appropriate action thereafter, if need be, in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are allowed. No orderasto costs. : r ' v, l sd/- T’k ,j satism. Agn’mm ,» f Judge ' Gowri