Supreme Court: Involuntary Narco-Analysis Test Reports Not Admissible As Evidence
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned Order passed by the Patna High Court, which had accepted the submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to conduct narco-analysis tests on the Appellant.
The Supreme Court held that reports of involuntary narco-analysis test is not admissible as evidence in criminal or other proceedings.
The Court set aside the impugned Order passed by the Patna High Court, which had accepted the submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused persons, including the Appellant, during the investigation.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B Varale held, “Adverting to the facts at hand, we cannot find a reason in the High Court accepting a submission by the Investigating Officer, stating that they will conduct a narco-analysis test of all the accused persons. Such a submission and its acceptance, is in direct contravention to the judgment of this Court in Selvi (supra), being hit by the protections under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.”
The Court appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court given the issues involved. AOR Mithilesh Kumar Singh appeared for the Appellant, while Additional Standing Counsel Anshul Narayan represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The significant ground of challenge taken was that the acceptance of such a submission by the High Court is in direct contravention of the exposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) , wherein it was held that forceful subjection of an individual to techniques, such as the narco-analysis test, violates personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court remarked, “conducting such tests on persons accused of committing a crime raises serious questions, vis-à-vis, the constitutional protection granted from compulsion to become a witness against oneself under Article 20(3). The constitutional validity of this test, along with similar tests like the polygraph test, came to be challenged before this Court in Selvi (supra). After an elaborate discussion, this Court (three-Judge Bench) held involuntary administration of this test to be hit by Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The following principles came to be expounded:
- Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution are non-derogable and sacrosanct rights to which the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions;
- Involuntary administration of narco-analysis and similar tests is in contravention of the protection given by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, i.e. the right against selfincrimination;
- The results of such involuntary tests cannot be considered as ‘material evidence’ in the eyes of the law;
- Conducting such tests in the absence of consent violates ‘substantive due process’ – which is an essential element required for restraining one’s personal liberty. Permitting such tests may lead to a disproportionate exercise of police powers;
- The boundaries of privacy of a person are also breached when these tests are conducted without consent; and
- For voluntary tests, it must be ensured that appropriate safeguards are in place. Moreover, the results of the same cannot be admitted directly as evidence. Pertinently, any fact or information that is discovered subsequent thereto, with the help of the information supplied in the result, can be admitted into evidence with the aid of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.”
“Therefore, the first question framed is answered in the negative. The High Court has erred in accepting a submission to carry out a narco-analysis test of all accused persons by the Investigating Officer,” the Bench held.
“We are not inclined to accept the submission of the Respondent- State that since modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour, the High Court was correct in accepting the submission that narco-analysis test of all accused persons will be conducted. While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21,” the Court explained.
The Bench further stated, “Moreover, we fail to understand how such an endeavour was accepted by the High Court when adjudicating an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is settled law that while entertaining an application for grant of bail, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations against the accused; period of custody undergone; nature of evidence and the crime in question; likelihood of influencing witnesses and other such relevant grounds.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Keeping in view the above discussion, we have no doubt that the impugned Order cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned Order dated 9th November 2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna is hereby set aside.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Amlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 810)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Mithilesh Kumar Singh; Advocates Ashutosh Kumar Singh and Manju Singh
Respondents: Additional Standing Counsel Anshul Narayan; AOR Prem Prakash
