The fundamental right against compelled self-incrimination is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. Under Indian code of criminal procedure statements obtained by the police in the course of criminal investigations are per se inadmissible at trial, and per Indian code of evidence, confessional statements obtained by the police, or recorded while the accused was in police custody, are also inadmissible at trial as irrelevant. The Supreme Court of India has developed an incredibly rich doctrine around these statutory provisions. Some of these cases are constitutionally significant because these cases raise serious questions affecting the admissibility of confessional statements at trial. This article, after making a detailed study of these cases that interpret article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, and comparing them with relevant U.S Supreme Courts, offers a novel interpretation of the word ‘compelled’ as it appears in article 20(3). The new interpretation is also suggestive of a new theory of the right against compelled self-incrimination. This view is grounded in the rich history that resulted in drafting of article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. It specifically suggests that this fundamental right, prohibitive in its nature, specifically prohibits three distinct types of compulsion that result in custodial confessions being compelled. This position casts considerable doubt over certain key provisions of the Bhartiay Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 that was recently enacted by Indian Parliament to replace the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.