Narco Analysis

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , it was held that the right to privacy `is an essential ingredient of personal liberty’ and that the right to `personal liberty is `a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.

The contentions before us have touched on aspects such as the `right to privacy’ and the `right against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment’. It is also structured around the right to fair trial which is an essential component of `personal liberty’.

There are several ways in which the involuntary administration of either of the impugned tests could be viewed as a restraint

For example, one source states that investigations into the July 11 train blasts in Mumbai and the subsequent blasts in Malegaon were successful only because of the revelations made by individuals during Narco-analysis. It goes further to state that Narco-analysis has also taken the place of preventive forensics, because it has helped the administration take steps to prevent further planned blasts in Malegaon and Karnataka. The murkiness around the Aarushi murder case finally got clearer after conducting the Narco analysis test on certain suspects. Thus, in this presntation, I have reached the following

Art.20 (3) and 161(2) of the CrPC ensure protection against “involuntary” “self – incrimination” but not “involuntary” incrimination of “any other person”. Hence, these tests can be used to incriminate any other person other than the accused.

6. The Expert opinions regarding the testimony given by the person undergoing such tests and the basis to form such opinions will be considered relevant and thus be admissible. Thus, in this case, the incrimination of the accused will be based upon the expert opinion of the medical practitioners and the scientists.

7. The results obtained from both the Polygraph examination and the BEAP test do not amount to ‘testimony’ thereby lying outside the protective scope of Article 20(3).

8. The actual administration of either the Narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination or the BEAP test do not involve a condemnable degree of physical pain or suffering. Even though some physical force may be used or threats may be given to compel a person to undergo the tests, the administration of these tests ordinarily does not result in physical