Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to the validity of involuntary administration of scientific techniques, specifically narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests, used to enhance criminal investigations. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3 judge bench consisting of Justice JM Panchal, Justice RV Raveendran and Justice KG Balakrishnan.  

Facts 

• The criminal appeals in this case concern the involuntary administration of scientific techniques, specifically narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests, used to enhance criminal investigations. 
• The case raises tensions between the need for efficient criminal investigations and the protection of individual liberties under constitutional law. 
• Objections have been raised regarding the use of these techniques without the consent of individuals who are accused, suspects, or witnesses in criminal investigations. 
• It has been contended that verbal statements made during narcoanalysis are not protected by Article 20(3) because their incriminating nature is unknown at the time of the test. 
• Thus, the Court was faced with the issue of validity of these tests.

Issues Involved

• Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the COI? 
• Whether involuntary administration of the impugned techniques is a reasonable restriction on `personal liberty' as understood in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution? 

Observation  

• Violation of Right Against Self-Incrimination: The compulsory administration of techniques like narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and brain electrical activation profile violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. 
• Ensuring Voluntariness and Reliability: The rationale behind Article 20(3) is to ensure the reliability and voluntariness of statements admitted as evidence, protecting individuals during investigations. 
• Protection at Investigative Stage: This right extends to accused persons, suspects, and witnesses during the investigative stage, as reinforced by Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
• Inadmissibility of Compelled Evidence: Test results obtained through compulsion are inadmissible as evidence, as Article 20(3) protects an individual's choice to speak or remain silent, regardless of the nature of the testimony. 
• Testimonial Nature of Evidence: The results from such techniques are considered testimonial and not material evidence, as they involve personal knowledge relevant to the case. 
• Violation of Substantive Due Process: Forcing individuals to undergo these techniques violates substantive due process, infringing on personal liberty, regardless of the context in which they are administered. 
• Unjustified Mental Intrusion: The compulsory use of these techniques is an unjustified intrusion into mental privacy and could be deemed cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international human rights norms. 
• Conflict with Right to Fair Trial: Relying on results from these techniques conflicts with the right to a fair trial, and public interest cannot justify the erosion of constitutional rights like the right against self-incrimination. 
• Prohibition of Forced Administration: No individual should be forcibly subjected to these techniques in any context, as it constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. 
• Voluntary Administration with Safeguards: Voluntary administration is permissible within the criminal justice system, provided specific safeguards are followed. 
• Limited Evidentiary Value: Even with consent, test results alone cannot be admitted as evidence since the subject lacks conscious control over their responses. 
• Discovery of New Evidence: Information or material discovered as a result of voluntarily administered tests can be admitted as evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 
• Adherence to NHRC Guidelines: The National Human Rights Commission's 2000 guidelines for administering polygraph tests must be strictly followed, with similar safeguards applied to narcoanalysis and brain electrical activation profile tests. 
• Key NHRC Guidelines Include: 
  • No tests without the accused’s consent. 
  • Access to legal counsel and explanation of the test's implications. 
  • Consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. 
  • Legal representation during the Magistrate hearing. 
  • Clarification that statements are not confessional but treated as police statements. 
  • Consideration of detention factors by the Magistrate. 
  • Independent agencies should conduct the tests in the presence of a lawyer. 
  • Full medical and factual documentation of the process. 

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment which lays down that the compulsory administration of techniques like narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and brain electrical activation profile violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. 
• This is thus a very important judgment talking about balance with personal liberties and need for efficient investigation. 

[Original Judgment]