Author: Mishti jain, Ba.llb 4th year student at Jigyasa University, formerly Himgiri Zee University, Dehradun
Introduction
The controversial issue of involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping techniques was addressed by the Supreme Court of India in 2010, resulting in one of its most significant decisions. The decision represents an important milestone in the defence of individual rights under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with matters concerning forensic investigation, personal liberty, and self-incrimination. The Selvi v. State of Karnataka AIR (2010) SC 1974. In Indian jurisprudence, the case holds significant significance as it concerns the constitutional legitimacy of intrusive scientific methods like narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping. The Supreme Court of India’s decision serves as a landmark ruling that upholds the fundamental principles of personal liberty and human dignity in the Constitution and also limits the use of technology in criminal cases.
Background of the Case
Narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests were increasingly employed in Indian criminal investigations during the early 2000s. This is the root cause of the Selvi case. The methods were praised as means to gather intelligence from suspects who declined to cooperate with law enforcement. However, they also raised important ethical and legal questions, including potential violations of fundamental rights. Selvi, a group comprising people from Karnataka and Gujarat, initiated dissent against the mandated control of these methods. According to their argument, such practices were infringing on their fundamental rights, particularly the right to self-incrimination, Article 20(3). Life and personal freedom are protected under the law. Article 21 Of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners in. Selvi v. State of Karnataka Argued that such procedures violated:
The right to life and liberty is based on these rights, as stated in earlier judgments.
The responses that are triggered by drugs or psychological pressure may not always be accurate and can be misunderstood.
Judgement
On May 5, 2010, the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench, chaired by Justice R.V, was in place. Raveendran, delivered its verdict. Narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain–mapping tests were administered without constitutional amendment. The judgment it made outlined several crucial principles:
As a result of forced disclosure, the information obtained through these techniques cannot be considered voluntary, according to the statement. It was noted by the Court that self-incrimination encompasses both oral arguments and physical acts.
Without the consent of someone, it was considered an affront to their human dignity.
In cases like these, safeguards were necessary to guarantee the fair and transparent process.
These results are not admissible as evidence in a trial, but they may be used for further investigation provided they were voluntary.
Implications of the Judgment.
The statement stressed that constitutional safeguards cannot be ignored when the state is interested in resolving crimes.
It also warned that methods ‘do not impinge upon personal dignity and autonomy’.
This was condemned by critics who claimed that it limited the police’s power to gather evidence, particularly in cases where suspects refused to cooperate.
The model illustrates the importance of protecting public safety from interference with civil rights.
Criticism and Counterarguments.
Despite its progressive approach, the judgment has faced criticism. Legal experts and law enforcement officials claimed that the ruling placed unnecessary restrictions on investigative agencies. According to their argument, these methods can be advantageous in tackling intricate cases when applied appropriately. Nevertheless, proponents of the verdict maintained that these procedures were not reliable. Narco-analysis is founded on the belief that a person who is under the influence of particular drugs cannot be dishonest. Nevertheless, investigations have revealed that the outcomes can be influenced by factors like the person’s mental state and the interrogator’ skill.
Conclusion
The Selvi v. State of Karnataka Case remains an essential element of Indian jurisprudence, particularly in the areas of criminal law and constitutional rights. By defending the fundamental principles of personal liberty and human dignity, the Supreme Court upheld certain aspects of the Indian Constitution. The decision also highlights the importance of balancing technology in law enforcement.’ But in an age where privacy, technology and the human rights are hotly debated, principles outlined in the Selvi case will undoubtedly guide that discussion. It emphasizes that in a democratic society, the pursuit of justice must always fall within constitutional morality.
FAQS
Q1: What’s the Selvi v. State of Karnataka case?
Selvi v. State of Karnataka. Narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping tests were deemed legal and constitutional in (2010) by the Supreme Court of India, marking a significant achievement.
Q2: What was the main point of contention in the Selvi case?
This concerned whether narco-analysis, polygraph tests and brain mapping on uninvolved people breached citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly Articles 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
Q3: What was the reason for the Court’s decision to invalidate these tests without giving assent?
The Court determined that these methods involve the physical disturbance of the body and mind, which violates an individual’s mental privacy. Such methods are a voluntary act and cannot be used as evidence, contrary to the principle of fair trial.’ Article 20(3) infringes on testimonial compulsion, which means that forcing someone to take these tests is not acceptable.
Q4: What are the main articles of Indian Constitution which were mentioned here in this question?
The judgment primarily focused on: Article 20(3): Protection against self-incrimination. Article 21: Freedom of choice and personal freedom, including the right to privacy.
Q5: Is it possible to use the outcomes of these tests as evidence?
Due to their involuntary nature and the violation of the right to self-incrimination, these tests cannot be used as evidence. Leads or corroborative evidence can be obtained by using them with the consent of the individual.
