Selvi V State of Karnataka

Smt Selvi and others v.
State of Karnataka is a landmark, 256 pages judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in 2010 which shaped the laws relating to the use of scientific techniques
such as Brain Mapping, Narco-analysis etc. on an accused, suspect or witness in a criminal
case.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In 2004, Smt. Selvi and others filed a criminal appeal followed by subsequent appeals in
2005, 2006 and 2007 and 2010 were taken up together by the Supreme Court through a
special leave petition.
The appeal highlighted the instances of how the individuals who were accused of a crime, the
suspects or witnesses involved in an investigation were being subjected to Narco-analysis,
Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP), Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI)
and Polygraph tests without their consent.
QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED:
1. Whether narco-analysis, brain mapping, FMRI and polygraph test used a method for
collecting evidence is a constitutionally valid method ?
2. Whether it violates the Fundamental right of an individual against self-incrimination
under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution and Section 161(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973?
3. Whether the administration of any of such techniques is an unjustified intrusion into
the Right to Privacy and Personal liberty under Article 21 of an individual?
Such actions were being defended by the authorities by relying on the following grounds-
1. It could help the investigating agencies to prevent unlawful activities in the future as
well as in circumstances where it is difficult to gather evidence by traditional means.
2. Reliance was placed on certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
Indian Evidence Act which refers back to the duty imposed on citizens to co-operate
with investigation agencies.
3. Use of such techniques does not cause any bodily harm and that the extracted
information will be used only for consolidating investigation efforts
4. This will not be admitted as evidence during the trial proceedings.
5. It will help improve fact-finding during the investigation which will consequently
help to increase the rate of prosecution as well as the rate of acquittal.
6. These scientific techniques are a softer alternative to the use of ‘third degree
methods’ by investigators.
7. That the information extracted through these techniques termed equivalent with
testimonial compulsion because the test subject is not required to give verbal answers,
thereby falling outside the ambit of Article 20(3).
HELD:
It was held by the hon’ble three judge bench of the Supreme Court that no individual
should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the pretext
of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Such a practise would amount to an
unwarranted intrusion into the personal liberty of an individual.
However, the court also pointed out that voluntary administration of the said techniques shall
be valid provided that proper safeguards are followed. The bench further elaborated that even
when the subject has given his consent to undergo any of these tests, the results of such tests
cannot by themselves be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise his
conscious control over the responses during the test. However, any information or material
that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be
admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court placed reliance on the guidelines published by the National Human Rights
Commission for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused in
2000. The court held that these guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar safeguards
should be adopted for conducting the `Narco-analysis technique' and the `Brain Electrical
Activation Profile' test.
Summary of these guidelines were reproduced below:
1. No Lie Detector Tests should be administered without consent of the accused.

2. If the accused volunteers to undergo a Lie Detector Test, he should be given access to
a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal implication of such a test should be
explained to him by the police and his lawyer before undergoing such a test.
3. The consent should be recorded in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate.
4. At the hearing, the person in question must be informed in clear language that the
statement that is made shall not be regarded as a `confessional' statement but will
have the same status as that of a statement made to the police.
5. The Magistrate shall give due consideration to all the factors relating to the detention
including the period of detention and the nature of the interrogation.
6. The recording of the Lie Detector Test shall be done by an independent agency such
as a hospital and shall be conducted in the presence of a lawyer.
7. A full medical and factual narration of the manner in which the information was
received must be recorded.
Thus, this judgment rendered the practise of narco-analysis, brain mapping, FMRI and
polygraph test to be unconstitutional and void in the eyes of law. The judgement is one of its
kind which deals primarily with an all new aspects related to privacy and right against self-
incrimination protected by Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution.

Selvi V State of Karnataka

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selvi V State of Karnataka

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selvi V State of Karnataka

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smt Selvi and others v.

State of Karnataka is a landmark, 256 pages judgment passed by the

FACTS OF THE CASE:

QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED:

1. No Lie Detector Tests should be administered without consent of the accused.

You might also like