No individual should be forcibly subjected Polygraph Test i.e. Lie Doctor Test - Protection covers not only accused but suspects also.

Supreme Court in Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors ruled against forced narcoanalysis, polygraph, and brain electrical activation tests, upholding right against self-incrimination

Supreme Court affirmed that involuntary administration of scientific in-terrogation techniques violates Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, em-phasizing protection of mental privacy, personal liberty, and fair trial rights.

The Supreme Court of India decisively held that no individual can be forcibly subjected to scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis (truth serum test), polygraph (lie detector), and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests during criminal investigations or otherwise. The Court ruled that such involuntary procedures constitute a violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) and infringe upon the right to personal liberty under Article 21.

The Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the historical, scientific, constitutional, and evidentiary aspects of these techniques. It observed that these tests involve 'testimonial compulsion' as they extract personal knowledge through verbal or physiological responses, which could be used to incriminate the individual. Consequently, such forced administration infringes the fundamental right that protects an accused or suspect from being compelled to provide evidence against themselves.

The Supreme Court further emphasized that these techniques intrude upon an individual's mental privacy and amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, thus violating the substantive due process under Article 21. The Court noted the questionable scientific reliability of these tests, the possibility of false positives or false negatives, and the potential for misuse in investigations, including threats or coercion to undergo these tests.

Importantly, the Court distinguished these techniques from medical ex-aminations permitted under Sections 53, 53A, and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allow examination of bodily substances such as blood and DNA profiling. The impugned tests do not fall within this statutory framework because they involve testimonial acts rather than purely physical evidence, and thus cannot be justified as medical examinations under the law.

The judgment also clarified that the right against self-incrimination extends not only to persons formally accused of an offence but also to suspects and witnesses who may reasonably apprehend incrimination during the investigative stage. The Court reaffirmed that silence or refusal to answer incriminatory questions cannot attract adverse inferences, both during in-vestigation and trial, safeguarding the accused’s right to a fair trial.

While the Court prohibited the involuntary administration of these tests, it allowed their voluntary use, subject to strict safeguards to ensure informed consent. These safeguards include giving the accused the option to undergo the tests, providing access to legal counsel, recording consent before a judicial magistrate, conducting tests in the presence of a lawyer, and ensuring that statements made during such tests are not treated as confessional evidence in court. The results of these tests, even if voluntarily taken, cannot be admitted as evidence by themselves, but any independent evidence derived from them may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court also warned against the misuse of these tests on victims, par-ticularly in sensitive cases such as sexual offences, and condemned the leaking of narcoanalysis interview recordings to the media, which can cause undue stigma and violate privacy.

Rejecting arguments based on "compelling public interest," the Supreme Court held that constitutional rights such as protection against self-incrimination and personal liberty cannot be diluted even in the face of na-tional security or crime prevention concerns.

This ruling marks a significant affirmation of fundamental rights and sets clear constitutional boundaries on the use of emerging scientific methods in criminal investigations, promoting dignity, privacy, and fairness in the criminal justice system.

Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 209871