Involuntary Narco Test declared Unconstitutional by Supreme Court

Context

The Supreme Court has overturned a Patna High Court decision that had allowed an involuntary narco test in the case Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025).

What does Narco Analysis Means in Criminal Investigations?

1. A narco test involves giving a person sedative drugs like Sodium Pentothal, a barbiturate, to lower their inhibitions and increase the chances of revealing information.
2. This method works in a manner similar to polygraph examinations and brain‑mapping techniques, aiming to uncover hidden details by weakening conscious control.
3. Even though the procedure is not physically violent, it interferes with a person’s mental autonomy and has long been questioned on constitutional grounds.

Why Do Narco Tests Raise Constitutional Issues?

1. Right Against Self‑Incrimination – Article 20(3)
   1. Article 20(3) protects an accused person from being forced to provide evidence against themselves.
   2. An involuntary narco test violates this right because it compels the person to speak under the influence of drugs, overriding their free will.
   3. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that without voluntary, informed consent, any information obtained through narco analysis cannot be admitted as evidence.
2. Personal Liberty and Privacy – Article 21
   1. Article 21 includes the right to life, personal liberty, bodily autonomy, and mental privacy.
   2. The Court held that forcing someone to undergo a narco test infringes upon these rights.
   3. Any investigative method must meet the standard of being fair, just, and reasonable — the “procedure established by law.”
   4. The Court also connected this principle to the “Golden Triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21, as articulated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which collectively safeguard constitutional freedoms.
3. Key Judicial Precedents on Narco Tests
   1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
      1. This landmark ruling banned the involuntary use of narco analysis, polygraph tests, and brain‑mapping. It required that:
         1. Consent must be voluntary, informed, and recorded before a magistrate.
         2. Strict medical and legal safeguards must be followed.
         3. Test results cannot be treated as independent evidence and must be supported by other material.
      2. The Supreme Court struck down the Patna High Court order because it violated these established principles.
   2. Other Consistent Judgments
      1. Manoj Kumar Saini v. State of MP (2023)
      2. Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025)

• Both decisions reiterated that narco test results cannot prove guilt on their own; they can only assist investigations and must always be backed by separate evidence.

4. Consent and Ethical Standards in Criminal Justice
   1. The Court referred to philosophical ideas of autonomy, especially Kantian ethics, which state that an action is ethical only when done with consent. Forced narco testing violates:
      1. Human dignity
      2. Bodily integrity

• Principles of natural justice

1. Thus, ethical reasoning supports the constitutional prohibition on involuntary narco tests.

Significance of Informed Consent

1. The Supreme Court emphasized that narco tests can be conducted only when the accused voluntarily requests or agrees to it.
2. Even during the defence stage, where Section 253 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) may allow such testing, the accused does not have an absolute right to demand it.

Implications

1. Promoting Rights‑Based Policing: The judgment strengthens procedural fairness and makes it clear that investigative convenience cannot override fundamental rights.
2. Balancing Victims’ and Accused Persons’ Rights: While investigative agencies may seek faster methods to solve cases, the judiciary insists that constitutional morality must remain the guiding principle.
3. Ensuring Judicial Consistency: By relying on Selvi (2010) and later rulings, the Supreme Court reinforces continuity and predictability in criminal law — essential for protecting civil liberties and maintaining legal integrity.

Challenges & Way Forward

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces that investigative efficiency cannot override constitutional rights. Upholding consent, dignity, and privacy ensures a fair criminal justice system while promoting ethical, rights‑based policing grounded in established judicial precedents.