Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (5) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2010 (5) TMI 907 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph examination, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests.
2. Violation of the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
3. Reasonableness of restrictions on personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. Admissibility of evidence derived from the impugned techniques.
5. Professional ethics of medical personnel involved in administering these techniques.
6. Scientific validity and reliability of the impugned techniques.
7. Procedural safeguards and guidelines for administering these techniques.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Involuntary Administration of Impugned Techniques:
The legal questions in these criminal appeals concern the involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph examination, and BEAP tests. These techniques have been used to improve investigation efforts in criminal cases. The core issue is the tension between efficient investigation and the preservation of individual liberties.

2. Violation of Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3)):
The involuntary administration of these techniques raises questions about the protective scope of the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It has been argued that the information extracted through these methods cannot be equated with testimonial compulsion because the test subject is not required to give verbal answers. However, the Court held that such techniques do amount to testimonial compulsion and thus violate Article 20(3).

3. Reasonableness of Restrictions on Personal Liberty (Article 21):
The Court examined whether the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that provide for medical examination during the investigation can be expansively read to include these techniques. It was necessary to discuss the principles governing the interpretation of statutes in light of scientific advancements. The Court also considered whether the involuntary administration of these techniques violates the right against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, which is part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21.

4. Admissibility of Evidence:
The scientific validity and reliability of these techniques were questioned. The Court noted that empirical studies suggest that the drug-induced revelations need not necessarily be true. The reliability of polygraph examination and BEAP tests has been repeatedly questioned. The Court held that the results of these tests cannot be admitted as evidence if obtained through compulsion.

5. Professional Ethics of Medical Personnel:
Questions were raised about the professional ethics of medical personnel involved in administering these techniques. The Court noted that the involvement of doctors in criminal investigations has long been recognized as an exception to the physician-patient privilege. However, the ethical concerns regarding the administration of these tests were acknowledged.

6. Scientific Validity and Reliability:
The Court noted that the scientific validity of these techniques is questionable. The narcoanalysis technique involves the intravenous administration of sodium pentothal, which lowers inhibitions and induces the person to talk freely. However, the revelations may not necessarily be true. Polygraph examination and BEAP tests are methods for lie-detection and gauging familiarity with crime-related information, but their reliability has been questioned in empirical studies.

7. Procedural Safeguards and Guidelines:
The Court emphasized the need for procedural safeguards and guidelines for the voluntary administration of these techniques. The National Human Rights Commission's guidelines for the administration of polygraph tests should be strictly adhered to, and similar safeguards should be adopted for narcoanalysis and BEAP tests.

Conclusion:
The Court held that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the impugned techniques, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, the voluntary administration of these techniques is permissible, provided certain safeguards are in place. The test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence, but any information or material subsequently discovered with the help of voluntarily administered test results can be admitted in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates