UPSC Syllabus- GS 2- Judiciary: Functions and powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts; Judicial review; Fundamental rights enforcement.
Introduction– The Supreme Court of India has ruled that compulsory or involuntary narco tests are unconstitutional, overturning a Patna High Court judgment in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025). The Court highlighted that the High Court disregarded the principles laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) regarding the protection of fundamental rights during investigative procedures.
What Are Narco Tests?
Narco tests involve administering a sedative such as Sodium Pentothal to an accused, lowering inhibitions and encouraging disclosure of information. While non-violent, these tests are similar in nature to polygraphs or brain-mapping techniques and are used to aid investigations.
Constitutional Safeguards
The judgment emphasized Article 20(3), which guarantees protection against self-incrimination, ensuring no individual can be compelled to testify against themselves without voluntary consent. This aligns with broader constitutional protections:
- Clause (1): Prohibition on ex-post facto laws
- Clause (2): Protection against double jeopardy
- Clause (3): Right against self-incrimination
Additionally, Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and the Right to Privacy were central to the Court’s reasoning, stressing that non-consensual testing violates fundamental human rights.
Balancing Rights in Criminal Justice
The Court reinforced that democratic criminal justice requires balancing the rights of victims with the rights of the accused. Any investigative method must preserve personal liberty, human dignity, and constitutional protections.
The ‘Golden Triangle’
The ruling referenced the Golden Triangle of Articles 14, 19, and 21 (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978), noting that infringements of privacy inherently compromise the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
Judicial Precedents and Procedural Requirements
- Past rulings, including Manoj Kumar Saini v. State of MP (2023) and Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025), clarify that narco test results alone cannot establish guilt; corroborative evidence is essential.
- The Court emphasized informed consent, to be recorded before a magistrate, with medical, legal, and procedural safeguards strictly maintained.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms that informed consent, autonomy, and dignity are paramount, and no investigative method can override fundamental rights, reinforcing the balance between law enforcement and individual freedoms in a democratic system.
| Question- Examine the Supreme Court ruling declaring forced narco tests unconstitutional and its constitutional implications. |
