Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 880038616
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".
Key Legal Precedents
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263. stands as the landmark judgment that declared forcibly subjecting individuals to narco-analysis unconstitutional. This case established comprehensive procedural safeguards:
No narco-analysis test shall be conducted without the accused's voluntary consent
The accused must be informed of the legal, emotional, and physical implications
Access to legal counsel must be provided before deciding on consent
Consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate
NHRC guidelines for polygraph tests should be followed
The recent 2025 Supreme Court ruling Amlesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar Decided on June 9, 2025,Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1326,2025 INSC 810 reaffirmed these principles when it set aside a Patna High Court order that had accepted police submission to conduct narco-analysis on accused persons without consent.
Evidentiary Value and Admissibility
Direct Admissibility
The evidentiary value of narco-analysis tests is significantly limited under Indian law. A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test, even with adequate safeguards in place, cannot form the sole basis of conviction. The Supreme Court has clarified that "results of such involuntary tests cannot be considered as 'material evidence' in the eyes of the law".
Indirect Admissibility under Section 27
While direct statements from narco-analysis are not admissible, any information or material subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary test results may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, even such disclosure statements "unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, are not adequate to secure a conviction".
Current Legal Status and Limitations
Voluntary Tests
An accused may voluntarily choose to undergo narco-analysis "at an appropriate stage, such as during the presentation of defence evidence in a trial". However, there is no indefeasible right to undergo narco-analysis, and judicial authorization must account for genuine consent and proper safeguards.
Investigative Aid Only
Narco-analysis is primarily viewed as "a step in aid of investigation" that helps in forming grounds for further investigation and evidence collection. The test results cannot be relied upon by prosecution for securing conviction but may assist in the investigative process.
Physical and Mental State Considerations
The admissibility depends on whether the person making the statement is in a fit state of mind. Since the subject is in a "semi-conscious state" during narco-analysis and "does not exercise conscious control over the responses," the reliability of statements is questioned.
Procedural Safeguards Required
For any voluntary narco-analysis test to be considered legally valid:
Free and informed consent must be obtained from the subject
The test must be conducted in the presence of experts
Proper judicial authorization is required
Adequate safeguards must be in place throughout the process
The test should be conducted at an appropriate stage of proceedings
The Supreme Court has made it clear that "modern investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21", establishing that technological advancement in criminal investigation cannot override fundamental constitutional protections.
