SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS BAR ON FORCED NARCO TEST: VIOLATES ARTICLES 20(3) AND 21
INTRODUCTION
In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional rights, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [SLP(Crl.) No. 5392 of 2024], (Date of Judgement- 9 June 2025), has reiterated that no individual can be subjected to narco-analysis tests without voluntary consent while allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order dated 9th November 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The Judgment fortifies the principles laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka [2010 (7) SCC 263] and restrains courts from authorizing such tests, especially at the stage of bail proceedings.
BRIEF FACTS
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute involving the Appellant, who married the Complainant’s sister on December 2020. After the marriage, allegations surfaced that the Appellant and his family subjected the woman to physical abuse and ongoing demands for dowry. On 22 August 2022, the complainant received a phone call from the Appellant claiming that her sister had fled from the matrimonial home. Unable to locate her despite extensive searching, the Complainant suspected foul play and filed an FIR under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506, and 34.
In his defence, the Appellant claimed that while traveling to Ayodhya, his wife fled. He subsequently filed a Police Complaint at the Jahangir Ganj Police Station. Meanwhile, confessions from co-accused family members claimed that the woman was thrown into the Saryu River on the night of 21–22 August 2022. The Sessions Court rejected the Appellant’s application for Bail. When he approached the Patna High Court, it accepted a submission from the SDPO, Mahua, proposing to conduct a Narco-Analysis Test on all accused and witnesses. This submission was received via an interim order, even though the matter before the High Court was a bail application. Aggrieved by the acceptance of this invasive investigative procedure, the Appellant filed the present Appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that such an order violated his fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted in the landmark Judgment of Selvi v. State of Karnataka (Supra).
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether it was legally permissible for the High Court to authorize a Narco-Analysis Test in the course of bail proceedings.
- Whether the outcome of a voluntary Narco-Analysis Test can independently serve as the sole ground for conviction.
- Whether an accused has an indefeasible right to request and undergo narco-analysis.
REASONING BEHIND THE JUDGMENT
- Compulsory narco-analysis infringes upon the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The High Court erred in accepting the SDPO’s proposal for such a test during bail adjudication, which is limited to evaluating a prima facie case, the risk of absconding, and the potential to tamper with evidence.
- The Judgment draws heavily from Selvi, underscoring that involuntary tests are impermissible and voluntary tests are subject to strict safeguards.
- Even if conducted voluntarily, narco results are not admissible evidence per se—only derivative facts discovered through them may be considered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- An accused may request such a test at the evidence stage, but it is not an absolute or indefeasible right. The Courts must assess voluntariness, safeguards, and appropriateness in each case.
Impact and Clarification
The Supreme Court has reiterated that involuntary narco-analysis tests are unconstitutional and cannot be permitted, especially during bail proceedings. It clarified that while an accused may voluntarily request such a test during trial, it is not an absolute right and must be subject to safeguards and judicial oversight.
The Judgment resolves conflicting High Court opinions, particularly overruling the view in Sunil Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan (2022) of the Rajasthan High Court and emphasizes that even voluntary test results are not substantive evidence, but may be used only under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The ruling strengthens constitutional protections and upholds due process in criminal justice.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Amlesh Kumar v State of Bihar is a critical reaffirmation of procedural fairness and constitutional fidelity. It sends a strong message against speculative or coercive reliance on scientific tests in criminal investigations and proceedings. The Judgment not only safeguards accused persons but also guidepost for investigative authorities and subordinate courts in upholding individual liberties.
SHAKTI ANAND
4th Year Law Student,
ICFAI, Dehradun