Author : Prashant Indoriya,
Student at Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Gwalior
To the Point:
In the case of Selvi versus state of Karnataka the supreme court in this case consider the constitutionality of various evidence gathering techniques including Nacro analysis, Brain Mapping and Polygraph test report rule that the use of such advance techniques method for investigation are now available to the police station of the process employed. Several High Court consider the compulsory of this certain scientific techniques namely the Nacro analysis and polygraphy examination bear a testimonial character and thereby tiggers the Article of 20 (3) Constitution. According to the court none of the test violated the Article 20(3) because test of brain mapping result or polygraphy cannot be said to be a statement the witness at the most it was be called the information received taken out from the witness. While the Nacro analysis would holds that the result of invitation of surgeon is necessary or a statement nevertheless unless it is shown to be a incrimination to a person making it does not give rise to the protection under Article 20(3). In these case Supreme Court held at the compulsory admission of certain scientific techniques namely Narco analysis and Brain Electrical Activation are the violation of the Article 20(3) of Constitution.
In this judgement ,the court discussed the Article 20 (3) of a constitution in related to Section 27 IEA. The Supreme Court observed that if self incrimination information as given by a accused person without any threat it will be admissible in evidence and will not affected by provision of Article 20 (3) , as there was no compulsion involved. It must therefore the held that the provision of Section27 Indian Evidence Act are not within the prohibition a for said unless compulsion as been used in obtaining the self incrimination information the basic theory of relevance in Section 27 is a discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from the accused whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Therefore it does not touch the question of the fact. It merely decides that a self incriminatory information obtained from an accused from custody comes within the prohibition of Article 20(3). That must necessarily so as any statement obtained from any accused under compulsion must affect it voluntarily in nature. A self incriminatory statement of a confessional nature obtained by compensation by threat is also hit by provision of Section 27 Indian Evidence Act .
Use of Legal Jargon:
The Supreme Court of India scrutinised the use of Narco analysis, Polygraph tests, and Brain mapping under the purview of section 27 of IEA. Section 27 deals with the admissibility of information received from an accused in custody that leads to the discovery of a fact. The court meticulously examined whether information obtained through these scientific techniques could be considered voluntary and reliable, thus admissible under Section 27 IEA.
The court emphasised that any confession or admission under Section 27 IEA must be voluntary and not coerced, highlighting the principle of self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the constitution. It argued that involuntary administration of these tests amounts to testimonial compulsion, rendering the information obtained as inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court underscored the importance of informed consent and procedural safeguards, ensuring that any information leading to a discovery under Section 27 IEA must respect the accused’s right to privacy and the due process of law. Therefore, the use of Narco-analysis, Polygraph tests, and Brain- mapping without the subject’s voluntary consent would violate constitutional protections and undermine the integrity of the Criminal justice system.
The Proof:
The privilege against self incrimination is a core canon principle of common law criminal justice. The feature of their principle
(1) that the accused is presumed to be innocent
(2) that it is for the prosecution to established his guilt,
(3) that the accused person need not make any statement against his will.
In MP Sharma versus Satish Chandra the supreme court taking broad view of Article 20 (3) to the oral evidence of a person standing trial for an offence is to confine the content of the constitutional guarantee to its barely literal import and so to limit Article 20(3) would to be rob the guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss the substance. A person can be a witness not only by giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making intelligible gestures in the case of a dumb witness.it also covers not only oral testimony or statements in writing of the accused but also production of a thing or evidence for other modes.
In the contest of privacy specifically, the court held that while laws of evidence could be used for interference with physical privacy, they could not form the basis for compelling a person to impart personal knowledge about a relevant fact. The court looked into the interrelationship of rights to read the rights against self incrimination as a component of personal liberty under Article 21. Tt consequently observed that right to privacy would also intersect with Article 20(3) in respect to a person autonomy to choose between speaking or remaining silent the court occupied and the use of such techniques in an involuntary manner would violate the individual privacy.
Article 20(3) of the constitution protects a person who is accused of an offence and not those questioned as witness. A person who voluntarily answers questions from the witness box waives the privileges, which is against being compelled to be a witness against himself because he is then not a witness against himself but against others. No prosecution can be launched against the maker of a statement falling within the sweep of Section 132 of the India’s Evidence Act on the basis of the answer given by a person by disposing as a witness.
The court now ruled that Article 20(3) is not violated in any of the above situations. The court stated that self-inclination based upon personal knowledge of the person giving information in cover only which must depend upon his violation.
The Court held that any information obtained through this scientific technology without subject’s voluntary and informed consent is inherently involuntary and thus inadmissible.
This conclusion was based on the principle of self incrimination under Article 20( 3) of the constitution which protects against forced testimonial compulsion. The court further stressed the use of such techniques violates the right to privacy and due process of law as guaranteed by Article 21.
Abstract:
In these case the Supreme Court of India ruled that the involuntary use of scientific techniques like Narco analysis, Polygraph tests and Brain Electrical Activation Profile tests in criminal investigation is unconstitutional. The court held that these methods violate the right against self incrimination under Article 20(3) and infringe upon personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgement emphasises that compelling individuals to undergo the test without their consent constitutes coercion and comprises mental privacy. However if an individual voluntary consent to these tests the result may be that consent is informed. This landmark decision underscores the necessity of respecting constitutional safeguards while employing scientific technology investigations.
Case Laws
RM Malkani vs State of Maharashtra in these Supreme Court held that the conversation could be used in evidence as it was voluntary and there was no duress or compulsion to extract the same. The fact that the tape recording instrument was attached without the appellant’s knowledge does not make the conversation inadmissible against him. Further there was no case against him at the time of the conservation and so there was no scope for holding that he was made to incriminate himself.
Ayub vs State of Uttar Pradesh the Supreme Court ruled that under Article 20 the accused person was protected from being compelled to be a witness against himself. Therefore the confession made under Section 15 TADA Act must be strictly according to the procedure let down in the Act for recording confession. The confession should appear to have been made voluntarily by the maker of that statement.
State (NCT of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu in this case Supreme Court held that non compulsion with the procedural safeguards against involuntary confessions need not necessarily or automatically lead to the rejection of the confession although the breach thereof will normally result in eschewing the confession from consideration.
Conclusion
In this case of Selvi vs State of Karnataka the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of the constitutionality of certain investigative techniques such as Narco analysis, Polygraph tests and Brain mapping tests. The court concluded that:
- Involuntary Administration: The involuntary administration of these tests violates Article 20 (3) right against self incrimination and Article 21 right to life and personal liberty of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, such tests cannot be conducted on individuals without their consent.
- Consent : Even when consent is given, the court stressed the need for safeguards to ensure that the consent is obtained voluntarily and without any coercion. Proper legal representation and understanding of the implications are necessary.
- Test Results: The results obtained from these tests cannot be considered as evidence because they do not guarantee reliability and could infringe on the individual rights. However, any information or material discovery as a result of these tests can be used in the investigation.
- Guidelines and Safeguards: The court emphasised the importance of having stringent guidelines and procedural safeguard in place to protect the rights of individuals subjected to these tests, ensuring their use is strictly regulated.
The decision was significant in reinforcing the protection of individual rights against involuntary self-incrimination and safeguarding personal liberty.
FAQ
1.What is Selvi vs State of Karnataka?
Selvi vs State of Karnataka is a corner case decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2010. The case addressed the constitutionality and ethical implications of involuntary administration of narco- analysis, polygraph and brain mapping tests during criminal investigations.
2.What were the main issues in the case?
The main issues were:
- Whether the Involuntary use of narco analysis anal polygraph test and brain mapping violate the fundamental rights of individuals.
- The admissibility of results obtained from such tests in criminal proceedings.
3. What was the Supreme court’s decision in this case?
The Supreme Court held that the involuntary administration of these tests is unconstitutional. It ruled that such practices violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
