Why in the News?

• The Supreme Court has set aside a Patna High Court order permitting an involuntary narco test in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025).

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Narco Analysis (Basics, Constitutional Protection, Concerns, Judicial Precedents, Ethical Principles, Implications, etc.)

Understanding Narco Analysis in Criminal Investigations

• A narco test involves administering sedatives such as Sodium Pentothal, classified under barbiturates, to suppress an individual’s inhibitions and enhance the likelihood of divulging information.
• The technique functions similarly to polygraph tests and brain mapping, aiming to extract concealed facts by reducing conscious control.
• However, despite being non-violent, narco analysis interferes with cognitive autonomy and has been a subject of constitutional scrutiny.

Constitutional Protection and Why Narco Tests Raise Concerns?

• Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))
  • Article 20(3) protects an accused from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence against themselves.
  • Any involuntary narco test breaches this protection by forcing the individual to speak in a drug-induced state, thereby suppressing free will.
  • The Court clarified that without free, informed consent, any statement or information obtained from narco analysis is inadmissible as evidence.
• Personal Liberty and Privacy (Article 21)
  • Article 21 covers the right to life and personal liberty, which includes physical autonomy and mental privacy.
  • The judgment reiterates that forced narco testing violates the right to Privacy & Personal autonomy.

• ‘Procedure established by law’ requirement, meaning any investigative procedure must be fair, just and reasonable
• The Court linked this to the Golden Triangle of Articles 14, 19, and 21, an essential framework that safeguards constitutional liberties as established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).

Judicial Precedents Governing Narco Tests

• Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
  • This landmark case prohibited the involuntary administration of narco tests, polygraph tests, and brain mapping. It mandated that:
    • Consent must be free, informed, and recorded before a magistrate.
    • Medical and legal safeguards must be strictly followed.
    • Test results have no standalone evidentiary value and must be corroborated.
  • The Patna High Court order was struck down because it contradicted these binding guidelines.
• Courts have consistently held Manoj Kumar Saini v. State of MP (2023) & Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025).
• Both cases reaffirm that narco test results cannot directly confirm guilt; they may only aid investigations and must always be corroborated with independent evidence.

Consent and Ethical Principles in Criminal Justice

• Importance of Informed Consent
  • The Supreme Court stressed that narco tests can be conducted only when the accused requests or agrees to undergo such testing.
  • Testing at the stage of defence evidence may be permitted under Section 253 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), but even then, there is no absolute right to demand the test.
• Ethical Foundations
  • The Court referenced philosophical principles of autonomy, particularly Kantian ethics, which emphasise that an act is ethical only when performed with consent. Forced narco analysis violates:
    • Human dignity
    • Bodily integrity
    • Natural justice principles
• Thus, ethical considerations reinforce the constitutional bar on involuntary tests.

Implications for India’s Criminal Justice System

• Strengthening Rights-Based Policing
  • The ruling strengthens procedural fairness and reinforces that investigative efficiency cannot override fundamental rights.
• Balancing Victims’ Rights and Accused Rights
  • While investigation agencies seek tools to expedite probe outcomes, the judiciary has reaffirmed that constitutional morality must guide criminal justice.
• Reasserting Judicial Consistency
  • By relying on Selvi (2010) and subsequent cases, the Court reinforces stability and predictability in criminal jurisprudence, crucial for legal integrity and protection of civil liberties.