Before the development of numerous scientific technologies, India’s investigation and interrogation procedures had become obsolete and ineffective, with police mainly depending on improper practices in a civilised society. Criminal questioning has somewhat adapted to the introduction of technologies in many areas of our life. However, one tool that is useful in this approach is narcoanalysis. A claim made by the accused using scientific instruments is known as a “narcoanalysis” and could be utilised as a component of the evidence against him.
Although the main legislation governing the acceptance of evidence in a court of law, the Evidence Act, is silent regarding narco analysis, opponents have long maintained that such a test violates the basic liberties that the Constitution provides to all individuals. According to several constitutional academics and jurists, the narco-analysis technique violates the right to self-incrimination protected by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
Concerns with the Narco Analysis Test
Narco analysis is a revelation made by a person who is only partially aware, making it impossible to understand the full impact of what he is saying. As a result, narcotic analysis is typically not accepted in court like confessions. Like other scientific methods like brain scanning and lie detector tests, narco-analysis induces suspects to incriminate themselves during a trial. As a result, these methods contradict the basic freedom provided by Article 20(3), which provides that no one accused of a crime may be forced to testify against himself. This freedom is known as the right against self-incrimination.
Objections to Narco Analysis
Narcoanalysis critics point to abuses by numerous Indian police agencies as proof that there is no scientific justification for its usage as a trustworthy source of questioning. India is the global epicentre of narcoanalysis, with so-called biscuit teams (behavioural science consulting teams) utilising pseudoscience to support unlawful interrogations. Despite the attention of security organisations worldwide, conflicting results have made it difficult to find objective truth despite greater suggestibility.
Judgments based on Narco analysis
The Selvi v. State of Karnataka case, in which the accused contested the constitutionality of specific scientific questioning techniques in criminal cases, yielded the most significant decision in this respect. The petitioners stated that utilising these procedures, which included narco-analysis, brain fingerprinting, and polygraphy, was softer than the investigators’ use of third-degree methodologies and violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution’s prohibition against self-incrimination. According to a three-judge Supreme Court decision, these examinations are considered testimonial compulsions and are thus forbidden under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court further established the following rules in this regard:
- No lie-detecting test should be utilised unless the accused has given their approval. The accused should be offered the choice of participating in such a test.
- A court magistrate must record the permission if the following tests are to be performed.
- The individual who gave the permission must be adequately addressed by an attorney at the magistrate’s hearing.
- Also clearly stated at the hearing ought to be that the statement given will not be a “confessional” declaration to the magistrate but will have the same legal standing as a statement given to the police.
