Narco-Analysis Judgment: Selvi v Karnataka

In  case  of Smt. Selvi  &  Ors.  v.  State  of  Karnataka  &  Ors, wherein  the  question  was- Whether  involuntary  administration  of  scientific  techniques  namely  Narcoanalysis,  Polygraph  (lie Detector) test and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test violates the ‘right against self-incrimination’ enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 

In answer, it was held that it is also a reasonable restriction on ‘personal liberty’ as understood in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Following observations were made in this landmark case:

1. No individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. 
2. Section  53,  53-A  and  54  of  Criminal  Procedure  Code  permits  the  examination  include examination  of  blood,  blood-stains,  semen  swabs  in  case  of  sexual  offences,  sputum  and  sweat, hair  samples  and  finger  nail  dipping  by  the  use  of  modern  and  scientific  techniques  including DNA  profiling.  But  the  scientific  tests  such  as  Polygraph  test,  Narcoanalysis  and  BEAF  do  not come within the purview of said provisions. 
3. It  would  be  unjustified  intrusion  into  mental  privacy  of  individual  and  also  amount  to  cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Voluntary  administration  of  impugned  techniques  are,  however,  permissible  subject  following safeguards, but test results by themselves cannot be admitted in evidence. 
4. No Lie Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test. 
5. If the accused volunteers for a Lie Detector Test, he should be given access to a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal  implication of such a  test should be explained to him by the police and his lawyer. 
6. The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. 
7. During  the  hearing  before  the  Magistrate,  the  person alleged  to  have  agreed  should  be  duly represented by a lawyer. 
8. At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a ‘confessional’ statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of  a statement made to the police.

 

Read the full Judgement, visit: Selvi v. State Of Karnataka