Alok Singh
On 9th June 2025, the Supreme Court of India struck down the order passed by the Patna High Court that had permitted the involuntary administration of narco-analysis tests on an accused and several witnesses during an ongoing investigation.
The matter arose in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, where the HC had, on 9th November 2023, accepted the submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to conduct such tests without the consent of the individuals involved. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Supreme Court that the Patna High Court’s acceptance of forced narco-analysis was in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Selvi and Others v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 7 SCC 263], wherein the Court had held that subjecting individuals to such techniques without their consent constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty.
Furthermore, the involuntary administration of narco-analysis was held to violate Article 20(3), which protects an individual against self-incrimination. The Court observed in Selvi that such practices fail to meet the standards of ‘substantive due process,’ a core component of personal liberty, and may result in a disproportionate use of police power.
The Supreme Court, in this case, found no compelling reason for the High Court to accept the investigating officer’s request to conduct narco-tests on the accused. The apex court reiterated that while deciding a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court is expected to examine relevant factors such as the nature of the allegations, the period of custody undergone, the quality of the evidence, the gravity of the offence, and the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. It is not a forum for speculative or coercive investigative procedures, and using involuntary forensic techniques during bail proceedings was termed entirely inappropriate.
The Court emphasised that narco-analysis can only be conducted voluntarily and at a suitable stage of the criminal process. Specifically, such a stage arises when an accused chooses to lead evidence in their defence during the trial. Even then, however, this is not an absolute or indefeasible right. The Court concerned must evaluate the application in light of all surrounding circumstances, including the free consent, the need for adequate procedural safeguards, and the evidentiary relevance of the intended test.
In addressing the admissibility of statements derived from such techniques, the Court clarified that the evidentiary value of information obtained under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is now well-settled. Referring to Vinubhai v. State of Kerala and Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court reiterated that a conviction could not rest solely on disclosures made during such tests, especially without corroborative evidence.
Case Name: Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Case Number: 2025 INSC 810
Bench: J. Sanjay Karol, J. Prasanna B. Varale
Click here to access the judgment.
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
