Narco-Analysis Tests in Indian Criminal Law: Constitutional Safeguards and Evidentiary Value

 Constitutional Framework and Legal Provisions

Narco-analysis tests in India are governed primarily by constitutional protections under Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. These rights are considered "non-derogable and sacrosanct rights to which the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions".

The Supreme Court has established that involuntary administration of narco-analysis violates the protection given by Article 20(3), and such tests cannot be conducted without the accused's free and informed consent. The Court emphasized that "under no circumstances is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law".

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is evidentiary value of voluntary Narco- analysis test of accused?

 264. In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAN

(Before Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.)

Amlesh Kumar  Vs  State of Bihar 

Criminal Appeal No.____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5392 of 2024)

Decided on June 9, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1326,2025 INSC 810.

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether an accused can voluntarily seek a narco-analysis test, as a matter of an indefeasible right?

 On the other hand, there is Rajasthan High Court, which in Sunil Bhatt v. State14, held that the accused can seek a narco-analysis test at a relevant stage in view of the statutory right to lead evidence in defence under Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code. {Para 19}

20. In our view, as rightly submitted by the learned Amicus, the above view of the Rajasthan High Court cannot be sustained. It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature, and moreover, we find the same to be in the teeth of the judgment of this Court in Selvi (supra). 

264. In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.”

(Emphasis supplied)

21. In view of the above exposition in Selvi (Supra), the third question is answered in the following terms:

The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to add, that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in a trial. However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test, for upon receipt of such an application the concerned Court, must consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the matter, such as free consent, appropriate safeguards etc., authorizing a person to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test. 

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.)

Amlesh Kumar  Vs  State of Bihar 

Criminal Appeal No.____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5392 of 2024)

Decided on June 9, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1326,2025 INSC 810.

Print Page

What is basic concept of Narco analysis test? How Supreme Court has dealt it in the judgment of Selvi V State of Karnataka?

 Narco analysis, also known as a "truth serum" test, involves the administration of certain drugs,  to induce a hypnotic or sedated state in which the subject is believed to be more likely to reveal truthful information. The subject is then interrogated in this state, with the aim of obtaining information that might be concealed when they are fully conscious.

In the context of Indian law, the Supreme Court of India addressed the admissibility and ethical considerations of narco analysis in the landmark case of Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., decided in 2010. This judgment has significant implications for the use of narco analysis, as well as other similar techniques like polygraph tests and brain mapping.

Here are the key points from the Selvi judgment:

Print Page

Questions and answers on law(Part 62)

 Q 1:-  Whether legal representatives of the deceased defendant can take contrary defence?

Ans:- Supreme Court: Legal representative of deceased defendant can not raise plea contrary to plea taken by deceased defendant.

Supreme Court of India

Abdul Razak (D) Thr.Lrs. & Ors. vs Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors. on 7 January, 2010.

https://www.lawweb.in/2014/02/legal-representative-of-deceased-deft.html

Print Page

Can An Accused Seek To Be Subjected To Narco Analysis Test To Prove His Innocence?

 The learned counsel for the de facto complainant brought

to my attention Vipin Kushwaha v. The State of M.P. in

M.Cr.C.No.11699/2021 dated 6.9.2021 of Madhya Pradesh

High Court. That was also a petition filed under Section 482 of

the Code aggrieved by an order rejecting an application filed by

the applicant seeking direction to perform his Narco Test. In that

decision the High Court quoted Yogesh @ Charu Ananda

Chandane v. State of Maharashtra, an order passed in

M.Cr.C.No.11699/2021, petition No.2420/2016 wherein the High

Court of Bombay rejected the similar prayer for Narco Analysis.

The relevant paragraph No.7 has been quoted in the above

decision which reads thus : -

“In fact, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does

not warrant any interference. That the evidence which is

recorded in the course of the Narco Analysis Test or Polygraph

Test is not admissible in evidence. It would be a hazardous

situation to permit any/every accused to undergo narco

analysis test for proving his innocence. It is incumbent upon

the prosecution to substantiate its case and prove the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal Jurisprudence

contemplates that an accused has a right to silence and it is

the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt. The technique such as polygraph test and

narco analysis test would be helpful technology for the

investigating agency or to seek a direction in the course of

investigation.

“We must also account for the uses of this technique by

persons other than investigators and prosecutors. Narco

Analysis tests could be requested by defendants who want to

prove their innocence.” {Para 21} 

22. In the present case also, the petitioner wanted to subject

himself to Narco Analysis Test which according to the learned

counsel, is necessary to buttress his statements under Section

313 Cr.P.C. The above settled principles of law unequivocally lay

down the position that the revelations brought out during Narco

Analysis under the influence of a particular drug cannot be

taken as a conscious act or statement given by a person. The

possibility of accused himself making exculpatory statements to

support his defence also cannot be ruled out. There is no

mechanism or the present Investigating Agency is also not

equipped to assess the credibility of such revelations of the

accused. The Investigating Officers also would find themselves

difficult to come to a definite conclusion regarding the veracity

of the revelations so made and the other evidence already

collected by them. So the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that in order to buttress his statements under

Section 313 Cr.P.C , these materials collected through Narco

Analysis Test can be used as corroborative piece of evidence

etc, is not at all sustainable in law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.MC NO. 4007 OF 2021

LOUIS  Vs STATE OF KERALA

PRESENT

 MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

Dated : 19th November, 2021

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court Judgment on Narco analysis

Constitution - Right against self-incrimination - Constitutionality of Involuntary administration of Narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) - Article 20(3) of Constitution of India, 1950 - Whether the involuntary administration of the Narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) violates the 'right against self-incrimination' enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution - Held, circumstances that could 'expose a person to criminal charges' amounts to incrimination' for the purpose of Article 20(3) - Article 20(3) aims to prevent the forcible 'conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue' - Protective scope of Article 20(3) extends to the investigative stage in criminal cases - Since, the underlying rationale of the 'right against self-incrimination' is to ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements that are admitted as evidence, the compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the 'right against self-incrimination - Article 20(3) protects an individual's choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory - Results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a 'testimonial' character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence - Hence, test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through the use of compulsion.

Constitution - Right against self-incrimination' - Who can avail Right against self-incrimination - Held - 'Right against self-incrimination ' available to persons who have been formally accused as well as those who are examined as suspects in criminal cases - Extends to cover witnesses who apprehend that their answers could expose them to criminal charges in the ongoing investigation or even in cases other than the one being investigated. 

Constitution - 'Testimonial Compulsion' - Whether the results derived from the impugned techniques amount to 'testimonial compulsion' thereby attracting the bar of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Held, reliance on the contents of compelled testimony comes within the prohibition of Article 20(3) but its use for the purpose of identification or corroboration with facts already known to the investigators not barred - Narcoanalysis technique involves testimonial act as the subject is encouraged to speak in a drug-induced state such - Hence, compulsory administration of the narcoanalysis technique amounts to 'testimonial compulsion' and thereby triggers the protection of Article 20(3).

Constitution - Inter-relation between Right to fair trial and 'personal liberty' - Article 21 of the Constitution of India,1950 - Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques a reasonable restriction on `personal liberty' as understood in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution - Held, inter-relationship between the `right against self- incrimination' and the `right to fair trial' has been recognised under Article 21 - Forcing an individual to undergo any of the impugned techniques violates the standard of `substantive due process' which is required for restraining personal liberty - Compulsory administration of these techniques an unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual which amount to `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' - Invocations of a compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights such as the `right against self-incrimination - Thus, no individual to be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise.

Criminal - Derivative evidence - Admissibility of - Section 27 Evidence Act, 1872 and Article 20(3) of Constitution of India, 1950 - Permissibility of extracting statements which may furnish a link in the chain of evidence and hence create a risk of exposure to criminal charges - Whether such derivative use of information extracted in a custodial environment is compatible with Article 20(3) - Held, Section 27 of Evidence Act, permits the derivative use of custodial statements in the ordinary course of events - Provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are not within the prohibition under Article 20(3) unless compulsion has been used in obtaining the information - Thus, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act

"Compulsory involuntary administration of the Narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) violates the `right against self-incrimination' enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution as the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test."

"Article 20(3) not only a trial right but its protection extends to the stage of investigation also."

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1267 of 2004, 

Decided On: 05.05.2010

Selvi Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J., R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0325/2010 : (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263

Print Page

When brain mapping and Narco analysis tests reports are not admissible in evidence?

It is incidentally noticed that it is not in dispute that the appellant was subjected to brain mapping and Narco Analysis Test, but the person who had conducted the test was not tendered as a witness before the court and none has been examined to explain the report of the brain mapping and Narco Analysis Test.

Admittedly, the bulk of the allegations against the appellant are hence not on the basis of independent material evidence, but is apparently on the basis of revelations said to have been made by the appellant, while in a drug induced state when polygraph, brain mapping and narco analysis tests were resorted to in extracting information from the appellant. Though seemingly incriminating reports are placed on record, the person who had conducted these tests was never examined as a witness. However, the reports are marked as Exhibits P-95 to P-97. The said reports cannot also be relied upon as the same is violative of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Selvi & others v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0325/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 1974. Compulsory involuntary administration of the Narco-analysis, Polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile violates the right against self incrimination enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test.

Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had made out a case on the basis of the evidence on record that the appellant was guilty of any offence punishable under Section 121, 122 or 124-A of the IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (KALABURAGI BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 3645/2010

Decided On: 20.07.2016

 Abdul Raheman

Vs.

 The State of Karnataka

Coram:

Anand Byrareddy and L. Narayana Swamy, JJ.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)28 Kar

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while accepting report of Narco analysis test

 At this juncture, it is apposite to note guidelines given by the National Human Right Commission for administration of such tests on an accused, found in paragraph 265 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Selvi and Others v. State of Karnataka reported in MANU/SC/0325/2010 : (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263. It reads thus :

"The National Human Rights Commission had published 'Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused' in 2000. These guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar safeguards should be adopted for conducting the 'Narcoanalysis technique' and the 'Brain Electrical Activation Profile' test. The text of these guidelines has been reproduced below:

(i) No Lie Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test.

(ii) If the accused volunteers for a Lie Detector Test, he should be given access to a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal implication of such a test should be explained to him by the police and his lawyer.

(iii) The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.

(iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to have agreed should be duly represented by a lawyer.

(v) At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a 'confessional' statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made to the police.

(vi) The Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to the detention including the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation.

(vii) The actual recording of the Lie Detector Test shall be done by an independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence of a lawyer.

(viii) A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the information received must be taken on record."

41. Bare perusal of these guidelines shows that consent of the accused is sine-qua-non for conducting such test and physical, emotional and legal implications of such tests are required to be communicated to such accused. His consent is required to be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. The accused is entitled to take assistance of his lawyer. The evidence on record does not show that these guidelines given by the National Human Rights Commission for conducting such tests were followed before subjecting appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd.Samir for Polygraph, Brain Mapping and Narco Analysis Tests. Evidence of PW15 Dr. Malini Subramanyam on aspect of consent of appellant/accused No. 1 for subjecting himself to such tests is as sketchy as it can be. She has merely stated that appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd.Samir had given consent for such tests. This witness has not stated that appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd. Samir was made aware about physical, emotional and legal implications of such tests and his consent was free consent not influenced by coercion, duress, undue influence or fraud. Perusal of Exhibit 90 goes to show that consent of appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd. Samir was obtained by getting his signature on the consent form which is having stereotyped contents. This consent form at Exhibit 90 was meant for Polygraph test. It appears that subsequently the word scientific was added to this consent form at Exhibit 90. There is no separate consent for Brain Mapping as well as Narco Analysis Test given by appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd. Samir to the authorities of Forensic Science Laboratory at Bangalore. There is no positive evidence to demonstrate that appellant/accused No. 1 was made aware about test to which he was being subjected at that laboratory. Even there is no positive evidence to show that appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd.Samir had consented for such type of test before the Judicial Magistrate. PW22 Vikas Wagh, API, had taken appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd. Samir to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore for these scientific tests. This witness has not deposed about obtaining consent of the appellant/accused No. 1 for subjecting himself to such tests before the Judicial Magistrate. The term Narco Analysis is derived from Greek word NARKCA meaning anesthesia or tarpor by administering psychotropic drug to the subject. His capacity for imagination is blocked or neutralized by leading him into semiconscious state during conducting such test on him, because a person is able to lie by using his imagination. Salutary provisions of Article 28(3) of the Constitution of India and Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. No one can forcibly extract a statement from the accused and his right to remain silent during the course of investigation is vindicated by these statutory provisions. One may say that right granted under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India can be waived by the person himself but for that purpose evidence in respect of consent of such person must be of an impeachable character. However, in the case in hand, evidence on record does not indicate that appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd. Samir was subjected to scientific tests by strict adherence to the guidelines given by the National Human Rights Commission. Apart from this, in Narco Analysis Test the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during such tests.

42. Perusal of evidence of PW15 Dr. Malini Subramanyam, PW23 Shivaji Nehman Investigating Officer, along with transcript of Narco Analysis Test of appellant/accused No. 1 at Exhibit 151 coupled with report of Narco Analysis Test at Exhibit 96 goes to show that incriminating material against appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd. Samir is sought to be brought on record from statement given in trans by appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd. Samir. His revelations during such tests are inculpating or incriminating appellant/accused No. 1 Mohd. Samir as well as other co-accused. Such revelations are inadmissible in evidence. At this juncture, it is apposite to quote observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Selvi (supra) found in paragraph 264, which reads thus :

"264. In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872."

43. In this view of the matter, as evidence in respect of consent for Narco Analysis Test is doubtful and as the result thereof are inculpatory, the same cannot be used against appellants/accused. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal Nos. 255 of 2009 and 1241 of 2008

Decided On: 10.01.2017

Mohd. Samir Mohd. Juber Shaikh Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:V.K. Tahilramani and A.M. Badar, JJ.

Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI)1143

Print Page