Selvi vs State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974: Narcoanalysis, Polygraph Test & Privacy Rights

In Selvi vs State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974, the Supreme Court of India held that the forced use of scientific methods such as narcoanalysis, lie detector tests and brain mapping (BEAP) to obtain evidence in criminal investigations infringes upon an individual's right against self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) and their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. The Court declared that results from these tests which are conducted under compulsion cannot be admitted as evidence in the court. For a deeper understanding of important judicial decisions, explore Landmark Judgements

Selvi vs State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 Introduction

Selvi vs State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court. The Court in this case addressed the constitutionality of scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph (lie detector) tests and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) in criminal investigations. The Court examined whether administering these tests without consent violates fundamental rights, especially the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. On 5th May, 2010 the Supreme Court in Selvi case held that the involuntary administration of such tests violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of Indian Constitution. 

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Download Selvi vs State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 Free PDF

The case at hand revolves around the constitutionality of scientific techniques including narcoanalysis, BEAP (Brain Electrical Activation Profile) or ‘brain mapping’ and polygraph tests. The following are the brief facts of the case of Selvi vs State of Karnataka -

Selvic Case Summary

In this case Smt. Selvi and others in 2004 filed the first batch of criminal appeals followed by subsequent appeals in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010. On 5th May, 2010 these appeals were collectively taken up by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court as a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of Indian Constitution.

Selvic Case Legal Issues

The main issues in these criminal appeals were regarding the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques used in criminal investigations such as -

• Narcoanalysis
• Polygraph (lie detector) examination
• Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test

The controversy centres around the use of these techniques without the consent of the accused, suspects or witnesses raising concerns about their constitutionality.

Conflict Between Investigation and Individual Rights

The case of Selvi vs State of Karnataka addressed the tension between the desirability of efficient criminal investigations and the preservation of individual liberties. The judicial task here is not only to evaluate the rival contentions of the parties involved but also to address fundamental questions about the scope and protection of constitutional rights.

Defence of the Techniques

The supporters of scientific techniques defend their use in Selvi vs State of Karnataka by highlighting their significance in extraction of information that could prevent criminal activities and aid in cases where traditional methods of evidence collection are difficult.

Objections to the Techniques

Several objections have been raised in the Selvi case against the involuntary nature of these tests especially regarding the right against self-incrimination mentioned under Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution.

Contentions of the Petitioners
The Petitioners in Selvi vs State of Karnataka argued that the involuntary use of neuroscientific tests violated fundamental constitutional rights especially the right against self-incrimination and the right to personal liberty and privacy. They also challenged the scientific reliability and ethical implications of these techniques.

• Involuntary use of these tests infringes Article 20(3) which protects against self-incrimination.
• These methods are scientifically unreliable and merely confirmatory and makes their evidentiary value questionable.
• Article 21 includes substantive due process and these techniques breach that protection.
• The tests amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment which is violative of Article 21.

Contention of the Respondent

The Respondents in Selvi case defended the use of these techniques as effective investigative tools that do not cause physical harm and contended that they fall outside the protection of Article 20 (3) since no verbal testimony is extracted.

Selvi vs State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 Issues addressed

The Supreme Court in Selvi vs State of Karnataka examined the constitutional validity of narcoanalysis, polygraph tests and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) in criminal investigations. The important legal questions addressed which were addressed in the case of Selvi case are as follows -

• Does the involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph tests and BEAP violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution? The Court in Selvi case analysed whether these techniques amount to testimonial compulsion and violate this constitutional safeguard?
• Does the involuntary administration of these techniques amount to an unreasonable restriction on personal liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution? The Supreme Court examined whether forcing an individual to undergo these tests infringes upon their dignity and autonomy?

In Selvi vs State of Karnataka Article 20 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act played a significant role. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Article 20 of Indian Constitution: Protection in respect of conviction

Article 20 deals with the protection in respect of conviction for offences. It states the following -

• Article 20 (1): Prohibits ex post facto laws, meaning a person cannot be punished under a law that did not exist at the time of the offence, nor can the punishment be more severe than what was prescribed when the offence was committed. Therefore, an old act cannot be made punishable by a new law. If a particular act was not an offence under the law of the land at the time when the person committed it, he cannot be convicted under a law that declares that act an offence retrospectively.
• Article 20 (2): Prevents double jeopardy, ensuring that no person can be tried and punished more than once for the same offence.
• Article 20 (3): Protects against self-incrimination and ensures that no person accused of an offence can be compelled to testify against themselves.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution: Protection of life and personal liberty

Article 21 deals with protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: How much of information received from accused may be proved?

Section 27 (Now Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) allows information given by an accused in police custody to be admissible in court but only to the extent that it leads to the discovery of a fact. The information even if it amounts to a confession can only be used if it directly relates to the discovery of a fact and not the entire confession or statement itself.

It is to be noted that these provisions were primary to the legal arguments in Selvi case, particularly concerning self-incrimination and evidentiary admissibility.

Selvi vs State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 Judgment and Impact

The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice J.M. Panchal, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice K.G. Balakrishnan in Selvi vs State of Karnataka case analysed the evolution and certain applications of the impugned techniques including their use within the criminal justice system, relevant foreign jurisprudence, and their limitations. The Court also examined the right against self-incrimination and determined that the compulsory administration of neuroscientific tests amounted to testimonial compulsion. It infringes the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court in Selvi case stated that in order to meet the standard under Article 20(3) such involuntary tests would need to satisfy the requirement of ‘substantive due process’ for imposition of restraints on personal liberty.

Purpose of the Right against Self-Incrimination

The Supreme Court in Selvi vs State of Karnataka highlighted that the objective of the right against self-incrimination is to ensure the reliability of testimony, as involuntary statements are inaccurate and they also violate the dignity and integrity of a person. The Court also noted that the relationship between the ‘right against self-incrimination’ and ‘right to a fair trial’ was considered in national and international legal frameworks. 

Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution and Judicial Precedents

In case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) highlighted the interrelation of rights, especially the dimensions of personal liberty under Article 21 such as the right to a fair trial and substantive due process.

The Court in Selvi case also restated its decision in M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra (1954) and held that the right against testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) extends beyond the courtroom and is applicable to anyone formally accused, suspects or witnesses in an investigation who might face prosecution.

Privacy and Personal Liberty: Article 21 of Indian Constitution

The Supreme Court in Selvi vs State of Karnataka held that evidence laws can interfere with physical privacy; they cannot compel an individual to disclose personal knowledge about a relevant fact. The Court examined how the right against self-incrimination is part of personal liberty under Article 21 and intersects with the right to privacy.

Historical Context of Right to Privacy

The Court in Selvi case traced the history of the right to privacy and referred to cases like M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) which did not explicitly recognize a constitutional right to privacy in India akin to the U.S. Fourth Amendment. However, Justice S. Rao's minority opinion in Kharak Singh highlighted that privacy is an essential component of personal liberty, free from State interference.

The Court also cited other cases on privacy such as Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975), R. Raj Gopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), and People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (1997) and recognized that the right to privacy though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty.

Intersection of Right to Privacy and Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution

The Court in Selvi vs State of Karnataka also held that the right to privacy interrelates with Article 20(3) and subjecting an individual to involuntary neuroscientific tests infringes both privacy and liberty. The Court also ruled that if an individual is not facing criminal charges such tests would violate the individual’s right to liberty under Article 21.

Directives issued by the Supreme Court

Thus, the Supreme Court in Selvi versus State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 directed that no neuroscientific tests could be administered without the consent of the accused which must be obtained before a Judicial Magistrate in the presence of their lawyer. The results of such tests would be treated as statements made to the police and not as confessions. The tests must be conducted by an independent agency with a lawyer present and the entire process must be duly recorded.

Conclusion

In Selvi vs State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 the Supreme Court bolstered the constitutional safeguards of individual liberty and privacy under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court balanced the necessity of effective criminal investigations with the fundamental rights of individuals by prohibiting the involuntary administration of neuroscientific tests. The Court in its decision confirmed the principles of fairness, dignity and substantive due process and directed that such tests require informed consent and judicial oversight to prevent misuse.