KARNATAKA’S DOMINANCE IN INDIA’S SERVICES EXPORTS

NEWS

• In Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025), the Patna High Court permitted an involuntary narco-analysis test on an accused.
• The Supreme Court set aside this order, holding that forced narco tests are unconstitutional and violate the guidelines laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010).

 WHAT IS A NARCO TEST?

• A forensic technique where a subject is sedated using barbiturates (e.g., Sodium Pentothal).
• Aims to lower inhibitions so the accused may reveal concealed information.
• Considered a non-violent but intrusive investigative tool, similar to polygraph and brain mapping tests.

WHY ARE INVOLUNTARY NARCO TESTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

1. Violation of Article 20(3): Protection Against Self-Incrimination

• No accused can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
• Supreme Court reaffirmed that narco tests without free consent = unconstitutional.
• Any information obtained cannot be treated as evidence unless corroborated.

2. Violation of Article 21: Right to Life & Privacy

• Forced testing intrudes on bodily integrity and mental privacy.
• The “Golden Triangle” (Articles 14, 19, 21 — Maneka Gandhi, 1978) requires all procedures to be fair, just and reasonable.
• Involuntary narco-analysis violates personal liberty and autonomy.

 EVIDENTIARY VALUE: WHAT COURTS HAVE SAID

• Manoj Kumar Saini v. State of MP (2023) and Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025):
  • Narco results do not confirm guilt.
  • May only aid investigation and must be corroborated.
• Consent must be informed, recorded before a magistrate, with strict medical and procedural safeguards.

WHY THE PATNA HIGH COURT ORDER WAS SET ASIDE

• It ignored Selvi guidelines, permitted forced testing, and violated Articles 20(3) and 21.
• SC clarified:
  • A person may volunteer for narco-analysis during defence evidence (BNSS Section 253).
  • But there is no fundamental right to demand such testing — and no authority can impose it.