DATE: 09/06/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice
Prasanna B Varale
FACTS:
The present appeal arises from a criminal
proceeding in which the Appellant, accused of serious criminal charges
including dowry harassment and abduction, has challenged the legality of a High
Court order permitting the use of narco-analysis testing during the ongoing
investigation. The matter originated from FIR No. 545 of 2022, registered at
Police Station Mahua on 24th August 2022, under various sections of the Indian
Penal Code (Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506, and 34). The
complaint was lodged by the sister of the missing woman, who alleged that the
Appellant and his family had subjected her sister who married to the Appellant
since 11th December 2020 to repeated dowry demands and physical abuse.
According to the complaint, the missing woman's last known contact was a phone
call from the Appellant on 22nd August 2022, during which he informed the
complainant that her sister had run away from their matrimonial home. Despite
efforts to trace her, the woman has not been located to date, and foul play by
the accused has been suspected.
In response to the complaint, the Appellant
presented a different version of events, stating that on 21st August 2022,
while they were en route to Ayodhya, his wife got off the bus at Baabali Chawk
for a nature break and never returned. He subsequently filed a missing person
report at P.S. Jahangir Ganj, which was recorded as GD No. 038 on 28th August
2022. Nevertheless, suspicion deepened when co-accused in the case allegedly
confessed that the woman had been thrown into the river Saryu during the night
of 21st–22nd August. While the Appellant’s parents and brothers were granted
bail by the Patna High Court, his own request for bail was rejected by the
Sessions Judge at Vaishali on 1st August 2023, citing the gravity of the
allegations and the confessional statements. Subsequently, when the Appellant
moved the High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 71293 of 2023 for regular bail, the
Court passed an interim order on 9th November 2023. In it, the Court recorded
the assurance of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahua, that a
narco-analysis test would be conducted on all accused persons and relevant
witnesses. The Appellant has now approached the Supreme Court, arguing that
this directive violates the constitutional protections laid out in Selvi
v. State of Karnataka,
which prohibits involuntary narco-analysis as a breach of Article 21 of the
Constitution.
ISSUES:
The key issues that arise for the
consideration of this Court are threefold. First, whether the High Court, in
the given facts and circumstances of the case, was justified in accepting the
submission made by the investigating officer regarding the conduct of
narco-analysis tests on the accused and witnesses. Second, whether the report
of a voluntary narco-analysis test, in the absence of any corroborating
evidence on record, can independently serve as the sole basis for convicting an
accused. And third, whether an accused person can claim the right to undergo a
narco-analysis test voluntarily as an indefeasible constitutional entitlement.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court set aside the order dated
9th November 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023, holding that the High Court erred in accepting
the Investigating Officer’s submission to conduct narco-analysis tests on all
accused persons. The Court clarified that involuntary narco-analysis tests are
unconstitutional and that even voluntary tests cannot form the sole basis of
conviction. The appeal was accordingly allowed, with directions for the bail
application of the appellant to be decided in accordance with law.
The Court reaffirmed that the involuntary
administration of narco-analysis tests violates Articles 20(3) and 21 of the
Constitution, as held in Selvi v. State of Karnataka.
Such tests infringe upon the right against self-incrimination, breach personal
liberty and privacy, and amount to a disproportionate exercise of investigative
power. The Court emphasized that while voluntary narco-analysis tests are
permissible with adequate safeguards, including judicial oversight and informed
consent, their results are not admissible as direct evidence. Only information
discovered subsequently, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, may be
admissible. Thus, any reliance by the High Court on the prospect of conducting
narco-analysis tests during bail proceedings was deemed a clear constitutional
and procedural error.
Addressing the evidentiary value and the
procedural permissibility of narco-analysis, the Court clarified that neither
voluntary nor involuntary narco-analysis results can be treated as conclusive
proof. Referring to prior decisions, including Vinobhai v. State of Kerala and
Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., the Court underscored that conviction cannot
rest solely on disclosure statements or results of such tests unless
corroborated by substantive supporting evidence. Moreover, the Court rejected
the notion that an accused has an indefeasible right to undergo a
narco-analysis test as part of their defence under Section 233 CrPC,
disagreeing with the Rajasthan High Court’s position. Instead, the Court held
that such a request must be evaluated by the trial court in light of the
totality of circumstances, emphasizing that the administration of these tests
should be subject to strict safeguards as laid out in Selvi, including consent,
legal counsel, judicial oversight, and independent medical documentation.
ANALYSIS:
This case underscores the Supreme Court's
firm stance on the constitutional impermissibility of involuntary
narco-analysis, reaffirming the principles established in Selvi v. State of
Karnataka. The Court held that the Patna High Court’s acceptance of the
investigating officer’s assurance to conduct narco-analysis tests on all
accused persons without securing informed consent and judicial safeguards, was
a grave procedural and constitutional misstep. Such reliance during bail
adjudication was particularly problematic, given that Article 20(3) protects
against self-incrimination and Article 21 guarantees personal liberty and
privacy. The judgment further highlights that while voluntary narco-analysis is
not outright barred, it must be approached with caution, legal oversight, and
cannot form the basis for conviction unless corroborated with independent and
substantive evidence.
Crucially, the Court clarified that even
voluntarily undertaken narco-analysis tests are not evidentiary substitutes.
Their results cannot independently justify a conviction or substantiate charges
unless linked to material subsequently discovered and verified under Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act. By rejecting the notion that an accused can claim
an unconditional right to such tests under Section 233 CrPC, the Supreme Court
reinforced that these tests are not investigatory tools to be used at will, but
sensitive procedures subject to rigorous legal scrutiny. This judgment not only
protects individual rights but also emphasizes the necessity for evidence-based
prosecution within constitutional boundaries.
info@adhwaitha.com