Forced narco tests illegal, results not admissible: Supreme Court
Setting aside a high court order allowing narco-analysis tests on accused persons without consent, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that involuntary or forced tests are not permissible under the law. The Supreme Court held that compelling an accused to undergo narco-analysis, without free and informed consent, violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.advertisement"The report of such an involuntary test or any information discovered as a result is not admissible as evidence in criminal or other proceedings," the bench clarified.
The order came days after a Patna High Court order accepting a police officer's submission to subject all accused persons and witnesses in a criminal case to narco-analysis testing. The submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer was accepted during the hearing of a bail plea filed by the accused.In its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its landmark 2010 judgment in Selvi and Others v State of Karnataka, which held that forcibly subjecting individuals to narco-analysis, polygraph, or brain mapping tests was unconstitutional. The court reiterated that these techniques, if not voluntarily undertaken, breach personal liberty and the right against self-incrimination.Procedural safeguards laid down in the Selvi case judgement:No lie detector or narco-analysis test shall be conducted without the accused's voluntary consent.The accused must be informed of the legal, emotional, and physical implications of the test.Access to legal counsel must be provided before deciding on consentConsent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.NHRC guidelines for polygraph tests should be followed, and similar protocols adopted for narco-analysis and brain mapping tests.advertisementThe top court further clarified that an accused may voluntarily choose to do so at an appropriate stage, such as during the presentation of defence evidence in a trial.However, even in such cases, the court emphasised that there is no indefeasible right to undergo narco-analysis. It also said that judicial authorisation must account for the totality of circumstances, including safeguards and genuine consent.Tune InMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
SC Grants Interim Relief To Man Booked In POCSO Case Wrapped In Matrimonial Mayhem
In a case tangled in family feuds and courtroom battles, the Supreme Court has granted interim protection from arrest to a man booked under sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act. The accused, described as a friend of the complainant's mother, had knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court dismissed his anticipatory bail plea, allegedly without giving due weight to crucial facts. The complainant's mother is a co-accused for allegedly forcing her child to have sexual relations with the accused. The woman, however, has secured anticipatory bail in the case. The case was registered in April, but is based on alleged incidents from 2021. The four-year delay in lodging the complaint has raised a number of questions. In their plea, the petitioner has contended that the complaint is nothing but a move in an ongoing matrimonial battle between the complainant's parents. The petitioner claimed that this move was orchestrated by the complainant's father as revenge on the accused for siding with the mother in a custody dispute pending before the family court. The high court, while dealing with a prior habeas corpus plea by the complainant's father, had brushed aside similar claims, attributing them to the fallout of 'severe matrimonial strife".
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Surprised by TN MLA's clean record, SC grants him bail in kidnap case
NEW DELHI: At a time when criminalisation of politics is on the rise, Supreme Court on Monday expressed surprise when it was told that Tamil Nadu MLA M Jagan Moorthy had no criminal antecedent and that led to the apex court granting him anticipatory bail in a kidnapping case of a boy. "It is a surprise on the positive side," said a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N Kotiswar Singh when senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the MLA, said the elected representative had no criminal background. Moorthy is the president of Puratchi Bharatham party, which is an ally of main opposition party AIADMK in Tamil Nadu. "If the petitioner is arrested in connection with FIR registered at Thiruvalangadu police station, he shall be released on a personal bond of Rs 25, 000 subject to the undertaking that he shall cooperate in the investigation and will not threaten the witnesses or tamper the evidence," the bench said in its order. Moorthy approached SC challenging Madras HC's June 27 order dismissing his plea for anticipatory bail. He claimed being framed in the case on the basis of a confession statement of a co-accused, without any direct or corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged offence.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
In first, SC introduces quotas for court staff
For the first time in its history, the Supreme Court of India has introduced a formal policy of reservation in the direct appointment and promotion for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) staff working in the top court. The move, which took effect on June 23, 2025, marks a landmark shift in the internal administration of the apex judiciary, long seen as conservative on issues of affirmative action within its own institutional structures. CJI BR Gavai (PTI) To be sure, the reservation is not for judges. The policy covers a wide swathe of posts, including registrars, senior personal assistants, assistant librarians, junior court assistants and chamber attendants. The model roster classifies all employees under three categories: SC, ST and unreserved. A circular issued on June 24 to all Supreme Court employees and registrars announced the policy's implementation and outlined the modalities for its execution. 'As per the directions of the Competent Authority, it is to notify for the information of all concerned that the Model Reservation Roster and Register has been uploaded on the Supnet (Court's internal email network) and it is made effective from June 23, 2025,' the circular stated. The document also invited objections from employees in case of inaccuracies in the roster or register and asked them to direct such representations to the Registrar (Recruitment). This significant policy shift has come during the tenure of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, the second person from a Scheduled Caste background to rise to the country's highest judicial post. That the approval came under his stewardship adds both symbolic and substantive weight to the development, especially in a judiciary often criticised for underrepresentation of marginalised groups both on and off the bench. 'All government institutions and many high courts already have provisions for reservation for SCs and STs. So, why should the Supreme Court be an exception? The Supreme Court has delivered several landmark judgments on affirmative action, and as an institution, it had to apply it. Our actions must reflect our principles,' CJI Gavai told HT, reflecting on the rationale behind the internal reform. The CJI added: 'I have always maintained that equality and representation are not competing ideals but complementary forces that drive India's constitutional vision forward. Affirmative action is not an exception to equality but integral to its realisation. The endevaour sets the tone for a more socially responsive judiciary within its administrative remit.' As per the circular and the model roster now in effect, SC employees will receive a 15% quota and ST employees a 7.5% quota in promotions. These figures align with the central government's reservation norms for direct recruitment. However, their application in the Supreme Court for promotional advancement is without precedent. The development is a landmark moment, not just for the apex court's employees but for affirmative action discourse in India's highest institutions. Notably, it has come during the term of a CJI who has lived the experience of social disadvantage and now helms the country's top judicial institution, While the move may appear administrative on the surface, it also addresses a long-standing and politically sensitive issue in India -- the denial or deferral of promotion benefits to SC/ST employees due to legal hurdles and the court's precedents on the matter. Reservation in promotion has been a fraught subject for decades. In particular, a landmark 2006 Constitution bench judgment in M Nagaraj Vs Union of India laid down stringent criteria for extending such benefits, including quantifiable data showing backwardness of the group, data on inadequacy of their representation in public employment and compliance with administrative efficiency. These conditions made implementation difficult. In the years that followed, many state-level reservation-in-promotion policies were struck down by high courts for failing to meet the Nagaraj benchmarks. In 2018, the Supreme Court revisited the issue in Jarnail Singh Vs Lacchmi Narain Gupta, relaxing one of the three conditions -- governments no longer needed to prove backwardness of SC/STs. However, it upheld the other two: quantifiable data on representation and administrative efficiency. It also introduced the exclusion of the 'creamy layer' (the relatively well-off among SC/ST groups) from reservation benefits. This compounded the Centre's dilemma. The Union government, backed by some states, repeatedly sought dilution of these requirements, citing administrative roadblocks and stagnation in service for thousands of SC/ST employees. It also argued that reservations should match the community's population proportion, echoing the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling in RK Sabharwal Vs State of Punjab. But in January 2022, the apex court refused to soften the conditions, emphasising that adequacy of representation cannot be gauged with reference to overall workforce numbers or community population share. 'Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the state is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs…Collection of information… cannot be with reference to the entire service or class/group but should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought,' the 2022 ruling held. The court also made it clear that only contemporaneous data, and not old or outdated statistics, would suffice. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court's internal adoption of a reservation-in-promotion policy clearly acknowledges the institutional need for representation within the top court's own administrative machinery. By establishing a model roster and maintaining an updated register, the court has now taken the first step in ensuring internal accountability in promotions. Moreover, it may serve as a template for other constitutional bodies, such as the Election Commission of India or the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which face similar constraints in implementing promotional reservations without running afoul of court rulings.
