Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content

Inside JGU 2021 - Issue 5 (May)

JGLS Professor awarded Doctor of Juridical Science by Maurer School of Law, Indiana University

Professor Khagesh Gautam, Associate Professor, Jindal Global Law School (JGLS), Assistant Director, Centre on Public Law and Jurisprudence, and Assistant Director of the Mooting and Advocacy Programme, JGU, has successfully defended his dissertation to receive the Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) by the Maurer School of Law, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA.

Dr. Gautam’s doctoral thesis is entitled ‘The Right Against Self-Incrimination under Indian Constitution & the Admissibility of Custodial Statements under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872’.

Dr. Gautam started his doctoral work at Indiana University in 2018. Since then, he has actively contributed to teaching and research at JGU.

Earlier this year, Dr. Gautam published his debut book titled “The Law of Emergency Powers: Comparative Common Law Perspectives” with SpringerLink, co-authored with Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India. It is one of very few comparative studies on three jurisdictions and arguably the first one to explore in detail various emergency powers, statutory and common law, constitutional and statutory law, and martial law. He remains passionately committed to promoting better understanding of law among his students and peers at JGLS. The book has already received positive reviews and is expected to make a significant contribution to research and scholarship in this field.

Brief abstract of the thesis:

This study argues that section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the right against self-incrimination protected by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. Section 27 codifies the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent recovery, an old British rule of admission according to which self-incriminatory custodial statements and/or confessions obtained by the police or the investigation agency are admissible into evidence on the ground that contents of such statement have been confirmed by recovery of incriminating physical evidence.