Case study on Selvi vs State of Karnataka on Narco Analysis Test.

Background of the case

Smt. Selvi and Ors v. State of Karnataka, is a criminal appeal in the supreme court of India bearing
Criminal Appeal No 1267 of 2004. The case talks about the legal questions related to the involuntary
administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the
Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in
criminal cases. The case gives emphasis on major legal issues including privacy or personal liberty, self-
incrimination and substantive due process.

Facts:

The case highlights the importance of mental privacy and contests the rationality of obligatory
administration of scientific techniques on a subject for better investigation.

Issue:

Whether involuntary administration of scientific techniques comes within the ambit of self-
incrimination, thus violating article 20[3].

Whether the results taken from such test will be considered as compelled testimony.

Who can invoke article 20[3]?

Whether the involuntarily administration of these test violates the right to life, as it invades mental
privacy?

Whether such test subjects a person to cruel and inhuman behavior.

Held:

It was held in this case that the results from these tests to be treated as personal testimony therefore
the outcomes of the tests are considered as testimonial compulsion thereby falling in the protection of
article 20[3].

The protection of article 20[3] can be invoked by a person formally accused, a person who is under
suspicion and is being examined and last but not the least to a person who is a witness in a case [whose
statement can expose him /her to criminal charges in the ongoing case] the protection given in article
20[3] gives protection not only to testimonial compulsion made in the courtroom, but also the
testimony earlier obtained by him and to a person who is being prosecuted there is imposition of
restriction on the personal liberty of a person when such test is administered on them and thus invades
the mental privacy of a person and by this means violates article 21. The court declared these test result
into pain agony and suffering which in evidently cruel and inhuman in nature.