According to the Supreme Court's interpretation in the State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad case, why does the compulsory taking of fingerprints, handwriting samples, or specimen signatures NOT violate the Right against Self-Incrimination under Article 20(3)?

Explanation

In the landmark Kathi Kalu Oghad case (1961), an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that 'to be a witness' under Article 20(3) means imparting personal knowledge or making a testimonial disclosure (oral or written) from one's mind. Merely giving mechanical physical specimens like fingerprints, blood samples, or handwriting does not involve the accused's consciousness or mental state, and thus falls outside the prohibition of self-incrimination.