FORCED NARCO TESTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: SC UPHOLDS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: thehindu 

Context

The Supreme Court, in the case of Amlesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2025), declared that forcing an individual to take a narco test is unconstitutional and invalid.

What is a Narco-Analysis Test?

Narco-analysis is an investigative technique that involves administering a psychoactive substance, commonly known as a "truth serum," to an individual to induce a hypnotic or sedated state.

The objective is to lower the subject's inhibitions, making them more likely to share information they might otherwise conceal.

Substance Used: A barbiturate like Sodium Pentothal or Sodium Amytal is injected intravenously.

Mechanism: The drug sedates the central nervous system, slowing down the subject's cognitive functions and imagination. 

• It is believed that in this state, it is harder for the person to lie, and they may answer questions more freely.

Purpose: It is used as an interrogation tool to extract information and is not a confession, as the statements are made in an unconscious state.

Constitutional Provisions Violated by Involuntary Tests

The compulsory administration of narco-analysis tests directly conflicts with several fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.   

Article 20(3): Right Against Self-Incrimination: Forcing an individual to make statements under the influence of a drug is a clear form of testimonial compulsion and a direct violation of the right that "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Supreme Court considers involuntary narco-tests a severe violation of the Right to Privacy, protected under Article 21, as they intrude upon an individual's mental privacy, bodily autonomy, and right to silence.

The 'Golden Triangle' (Articles 14, 19 & 21): Principle of the Golden Triangle, established in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978), dictates that Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedoms), and 21 (personal liberty) are interlinked, meaning a procedure violating one is likely to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the others.

Judicial Intervention

In Selvi & Ors. vs State of Karnataka (2010) case, the Supreme Court delivered a comprehensive verdict on the legality of narco-analysis, polygraph, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests in this foundational case.

• Involuntary Tests Unconstitutional: The Court declared that the involuntary administration of these tests is unconstitutional as it violates the rights guaranteed under Article 20(3) and Article 21.
• Consent is Mandatory: No test can be conducted without the free and informed consent of the accused, which must be voluntary and not obtained through force/pressure.
• No Evidentiary Value: Test results, even with consent, and statements made are inadmissible in court; they cannot be used as evidence or confessions.
• Use as an Investigative Aid: Material evidence or information found through a voluntary test is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. For example, if an accused voluntarily discloses a murder weapon's location and police recover it, the recovery is admissible.

The principles laid down in the Selvi judgment are applied by High Courts and the Supreme Court in cases, reinforcing that fundamental rights cannot be overridden for investigative convenience.

Guidelines for Conducting Voluntary Tests

These are largely based on the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (2000).

• The test must be voluntary. The option to consent or refuse must be clearly stated.
• The consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate after the individual has been given access to legal counsel.
• The accused must be informed in writing about the nature of the test, its implications, and the legal rights available to them.
• The individual must be informed that statements made during the test are not admissible as confessions but may uncover other evidence usable against them.
• The entire process must be recorded, preferably through video, to ensure transparency and voluntariness.

Conclusion

Forced narco-analysis violates fundamental rights like liberty and the right against self-incrimination. The judiciary limits its use, prioritizing individual rights and a fair justice process over the technique's intrusive and potentially unreliable nature.

Source: thehindu