Selvi V State Of Karnataka – Narco-Analysis And Right Against Self-Incrimination
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Background
In Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutionality of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-electrical-activation profile (BEAP) conducted without the consent of the accused. These tests were often used during criminal investigations to extract statements or leads.
Key Constitutional Question
Does compelling an accused to undergo narco-analysis, polygraph, or brain-mapping violate:
Article 20(3) – Right against self-incrimination
Article 21 – Right to personal liberty and privacy
Article 22(1) – Right to consult and be defended by a lawyer?
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held:
1. Compulsory narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping are unconstitutional.
They violate Article 20(3) because:
The person is forced to provide information, even if unconscious.
The results can lead to the “discovery of facts,” which amount to compelled testimony.
2. These techniques violate Article 21 due to invasion of personal liberty and mental privacy.
Forcing drugs into a person’s body is a violation of bodily integrity.
Extracting thoughts without consent violates mental autonomy.
3. The Court allowed the tests only under strict conditions:
Must be voluntary
Written and informed consent
In presence of a lawyer
Conducted by trained medical professionals
Results cannot be used as direct evidence but only as investigative leads.
Importance of the Judgment
It emphasized human dignity, bodily integrity, and mental privacy.
It restricted coercive investigation techniques used widely by police.
Related Case Law (More than 5 cases, all explained in detail)
1. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) – Foundation of Right Against Self-Incrimination
Facts
Former Odisha Chief Minister Nandini Satpathy was interrogated in a corruption case. She refused to answer certain questions, claiming protection under Article 20(3).
Held
The Supreme Court ruled that:
No person can be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them.
The protection begins at the investigation stage, not just the trial.
Police must inform the accused of their right to silence.
Relevance to Selvi Case
This case laid the foundation for the understanding that mental harassment or pressure to extract information violates Article 20(3).
Selvi later expanded this to include physical and chemical coercion (narco tests).
2. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1962) – What Is “Testimonial Evidence”?
Facts
The accused was asked to give fingerprints and handwriting samples. He claimed this violated Article 20(3).
Held
The Supreme Court clarified:
Testimonial evidence means communication based on personal knowledge.
Physical evidence like fingerprints, handwriting, blood samples is not“testimony.”
Relevance to Selvi
The Court in Selvi used this judgment to distinguish between:
physical evidence (allowed)
testimonial or personal mental content (protected)
Narco-analysis extracts mental content, so it is testimonial → violates Article 20(3).
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Custodial Torture and Human Dignity
Facts
Many custodial deaths and police torture allegations led to a PIL filed in the Supreme Court.
Held
The Court issued guidelines:
Arrest memo must be prepared
Relative must be informed
Medical examination every 48 hours
Torture or coercion is illegal
“Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity”
Relevance to Selvi
The logic extends to mental torture:
Narco-analysis is a form of custodial coercion.
Violates bodily integrity and human dignity guaranteed under Article 21.
4. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) – Privacy as a Fundamental Right (Early View)
Facts
The police kept surveillance on Kharak Singh, including night visits, which he challenged as unconstitutional.
Held
While the Court initially denied a broad right to privacy, it held:
Intrusion into private life without legal authority violates “personal liberty” under Article 21.
Relevance to Selvi
Narco-analysis intrudes not only into private life but into the mind itself, which is the highest degree of privacy invasion.
Selvi relies on later privacy-expanding interpretations (eventually recognized in Puttaswamy 2017).
5. Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) – Medical Tests and Consent
Facts
In a matrimonial dispute, the husband wanted the wife to undergo a mental health test.
Held
Court allowed medical examination only when absolutely necessary.
But mental tests without consent may violate personal liberty.
Relevance
This case is important because Selvi used it to argue:
Even normal medical tests require justification.
But narco-analysis is far more invasive → needs voluntary consent and stronger safeguards.
6. Ramchandra Reddy v. State of Maharashtra (2004) – Narco-Analysis Allowed Before Selvi
Facts
Accused in the Telgi stamp paper scam were subjected to narco-analysis.
Held (Pre-Selvi)
Bombay High Court allowed narco tests, saying they were only “assistive tools.”
Relevance
Selvi overruled this logic.
Supreme Court said:
“Compelled drug-induced statements violate fundamental rights.”
7. Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2006)
Facts
Kerala Police used narco-analysis to investigate a murder.
Held
Kerala High Court allowed it earlier, treating it as investigative assistance.
Relevance
Selvi later struck this down and reaffirmed:
Consent is compulsory
Results cannot be used as evidence
8. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Right to Privacy
Although post-Selvi, this case reinforces Selvi’s principles.
Held
Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Includes mental, bodily, and informational privacy.
Relevance
Narco-analysis affects all three:
Bodily intrusion
Mental intrusion
Extracted data (statements, memories)
Thus Selvi was consistent with later privacy jurisprudence.
Comparative Conclusion of Selvi with Other Cases
| Case | Principle | How It Supports Selvi |
|---|---|---|
| Nandini Satpathy | Right to silence | Narco-analysis forces speech → unconstitutional |
| Kathi Kalu Oghad | Testimonial vs physical evidence | Narco is testimonial → protected |
| D.K. Basu | Anti-torture | Narco is mental/physical coercion |
| Kharak Singh | Privacy | Narco violates mental privacy |
| Sharda | Need for consent | Narco needs strict voluntary consent |
| Puttaswamy | Privacy is fundamental right | Narco violates bodily + mental privacy |
Final Summary
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) is one of the most important judgments safeguarding:
Right against self-incrimination (Art. 20(3))
Right to privacy & dignity (Art. 21)
Right to fair trial
It declared that:
Narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping cannot be conducted without voluntary consent.
Results are not admissible as evidence.
Police cannot forcibly intrude into a person’s body or mind.
This judgment is built on decades of jurisprudence protecting individual liberty, mental privacy, and human dignity.
RELATED Blog
comments