right to remain silent
Every time a person is remanded to police custody by the court ( not talking of illegal custody or custody before being arrested which is quite normal), i am irked.
here is an article from indian express (june 27) titled 'right to remain silent'.
"since its inception, miranda has stood as a hall mark of judicial overreach in the minds of conservatives. they like to note that the warning does not appear in the constitution. and even though the right it enumerates are explicitly mentioned – the right to remain silent isguaranteed by the fifth amendment, the right to counsel is protected by the sixth – critics claimed at the time of miranda that informing suspects of those rights would cause them to clam up and thwart law enforcement … miranda is now nearly 50 yearas old, and the prison is full of criminals who were convicted despite it. some were read the warning and talked anyway; others got the warning, demanded lawyers and were convicted on evidence. indeed, one of the striking things about miranda today is that the law enforcement establishment no longer objects to it. the warning is simple and easy for the officers to deliver. when miranda faced a direct challenge in 2000, chief justice william h. rehnquist, who criticised the original ruling, voted to uphold it, in part because of that clarity and in part because it had such a establishef piece of police practice. (miranda here refers to 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision. such statements without giving warning cannot be used as evidence.)
why the courts in india cannot refuse police custody since it violates this right. here, of late, the police issues almost daily bulletins annoucing what the high profile accused have said or have not said. most of them are said to have confessed to the crime and more.