
Supreme Court Sets Aside Patna HC Order Allowing Blanket Use Of Narco Test On All Accused
An order of the Patna High Court had allowed the police to subject all accused persons to narco-analysis tests during the course of investigation.
The Supreme Court on Monday held that an accused person does not have an indefeasible right to undergo a narcoanalysis test, while at the same time clarifying that such a test may be permitted at an appropriate stage of trial upon application, provided the Court is satisfied that there is free consent and adequate safeguards in place.
The Court made the observation in an Appeal challenging an order of the Patna High Court, which had allowed the police to subject all accused persons, including the Appellant, to narco-analysis tests during the course of investigation.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, stating that it was contrary to the principles laid down in Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010), where the apex court had held that involuntary subjection to scientific techniques such as narco-analysis, lie detector, and brain mapping violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
'The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narcoanalysis test at an appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to add, that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in a trial," the Court observed.
However, the Bench emphasised that such a right is not absolute, and that any application made by an accused must be judicially assessed, taking into account factors such as free will, voluntariness, procedural safeguards, and the overall circumstances of the case.
Facts of the Case
The family members of the wife got an FIR lodged on August 24, 2022 under Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498(A), 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, suspecting foul play and alleging that the accused made repeated demands of dowry and used to beat the victim since the marriage on December 11, 2020.
The Appellant contended the acceptance of such a submission by the High Court was in direct contravention of the exposition of law laid down by this court in the Selvi case, wherein it was observed that forceful subjection of an individual to techniques, such as the narco-analysis test, violates personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, acting as amicus curiae, pointed out that there has been a divergence of views taken by High Courts on the issue as to whether a narco-analysis test can be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Given the suspect nature of a report of narco-analysis, he said that this position must be clarified.
Court Decries Blanket Testing of All Accused
Criticising the blanket direction of the Patna High Court that allowed narco-tests to be conducted on all accused persons based on a submission made by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the Supreme Court noted that such an order could not have been passed while dealing with a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
'We fail to understand how such an endeavour was accepted by the High Court while adjudicating an application for regular bail. It is settled law that while entertaining such an application, the Court must confine itself to considerations such as the nature of the crime, allegations, evidence, period of custody, and possibility of tampering with evidence," the Bench said.
The Court also took note of the suspect evidentiary value of narco-analysis tests and made it clear that results of such tests, even if voluntarily undergone, cannot by themselves form the sole basis for conviction.
'A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction of an accused person," the Court held while answering the second legal issue involved in the matter.
Right to Lead Evidence Not a Justification
The State had attempted to justify the High Court's direction by arguing that the accused had a right to lead evidence in their defence, and a voluntary narco-test was a part of that right. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court categorically held that such a view was untenable in light of the principles laid down in Selvi and the inherently unreliable nature of the technique.
'It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature," the Court remarked, adding that the Rajasthan High Court's earlier view to the contrary could not be sustained.
Assistance by Amicus and Legal Representation
Given the complexity of constitutional and procedural issues involved, the Court had appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae. The Appellant was represented by AOR Mithilesh Kumar Singh, while the Respondent-State was represented by Additional Standing Counsel Anshul Narayan.
The Court rejected a submission by the state government that since modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour, the High Court was correct in accepting the submission that a narco analysis test of all accused persons will be conducted.
'While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21," the Bench said.
Conclusively, the Court set aside the impugned Order dated 9th November 2023 passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023 and allowed the appeal.
First Published:
June 10, 2025, 13:39 IST
News india Supreme Court Sets Aside Patna HC Order Allowing Blanket Use Of Narco Test On All Accused

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Denied toilet access, made to kneel overnight: US deportee says he was tortured in El Salvador prison
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was supposed to be safe. In 2019, a US immigration judge ruled that the 29-year-old Salvadoran could not be deported to his home country, citing credible fears that local gangs there would persecute him and his family. But in March 2025, the Trump administration deported him anyway. What followed has triggered a political and legal firestorm over the administration's immigration enforcement, reaching all the way to the US Supreme Court. The White House has repeatedly claimed that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, the Salvadoran gang the US government has designated a foreign terrorist organisation. US President Donald Trump, speaking last month, declared that Abrego Garcia 'will never live' in the United States again. Yet multiple judges, including one on the Supreme Court, have ruled that he was deported in error and that the government is obliged to help 'facilitate' his return to Maryland, where he had lived since 2012. That court order came only after Abrego Garcia had already spent nearly three harrowing months inside El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, where he was sent immediately after his wrongful deportation. 'Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn't leave,' one official reportedly told him upon arrival, according to court documents filed by his lawyers. Held in an overcrowded, windowless cell with bright lights on 24 hours a day, Abrego Garcia says he was forced to sleep on a metal bunk with no mattress and was denied access to a bathroom, eventually soiling himself. He said he lost 14 kg in two weeks. In his testimony, he lists harrowing details. Upon arrival, he says he was kicked and hit repeatedly, leaving his body bruised and swollen. He and 20 others were made to kneel overnight, with guards striking anyone who collapsed, he claims. At times, he was told he would be transferred to cells with known gang members who would 'tear' him apart. He also said he heard screaming through the night. He saw prisoners assaulting each other in nearby cells. He was told by prison staff that his tattoos would mark him for death—until they later admitted they weren't gang-related at all. According to the new court filings, Salvadoran prison officials determined that Abrego Garcia was not affiliated with any gang. The Trump administration initially brushed aside the deportation as an 'administrative error.' But after weeks of legal pressure, it abruptly flew Abrego Garcia back to the US last month—not to release him, but to indict him. He is now in federal custody in Nashville, Tennessee, facing charges of participating in a conspiracy to smuggle undocumented immigrants, allegedly as a member of MS-13. His lawyers argue the evidence is flimsy and that the government is backpedalling on its previous mistake by doubling down on criminal accusations. Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn told a Maryland judge that the US intends to deport Abrego Garcia again, this time to an unnamed third country. There is no set timeline, but his attorneys say the threat is immediate and illegal. 'This was not a mistake,' one of his lawyers told reporters. 'It was a deliberate defiance of a court order.' The Justice Department has not commented publicly on whether it will comply with the Supreme Court's latest ruling or where it intends to send Abrego Garcia next.


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
HC denies bail to man for posts against PM, armed forces
The Allahabad high court on Wednesday rejected the bail application of a man accused of posting objectionable content on social media targeting the Prime Minister and the Indian Armed Forces. The Allahabad high court observed that the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution does not extend to such acts which disrespect high dignitaries and incite disharmony among citizens. (File Photo) The high court observed that the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution does not extend to such acts which disrespect high dignitaries and incite disharmony among citizens. Rejecting the bail application of Ashraf Khan alias Nisrat, justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said it has become a 'fashion among certain groups of people' to misuse social media under the guise of freedom of expression by making unfounded allegations against national leaders and circulating content that spreads hatred and division. The accused was booked under sections 152 (acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India) and 197 (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at the Sasni police station of Hathras district. It was alleged that the accused uploaded edited videos to his Facebook account during the recent India-Pakistan military face-off. According to the prosecution, one video allegedly depicted Prime Minister Narendra Modi walking alongside a donkey pulling a cart fitted with an aircraft, and later portrayed him as apologising to Pakistan. Another portion of the post allegedly showed Wing Commander Vyomika Singh of the Indian Air Force seated beside the Pakistan Army chief, with captions suggesting that the PM was running to save himself from a Pakistani missile. Additional posts allegedly included slogans such as 'Pakistan Air Force Zindabad' and visuals of Indian aircraft being destroyed by Pakistani jets. Other objectionable content targeting defence minister Rajnath Singh and the PM was also found, according to the prosecution. During the hearing, the applicant's counsel argued that Khan was innocent and had not forwarded the objectionable posts himself, though they were found on his mobile phone. In contrast, the state counsel opposed the bail plea, arguing that the posts created social disharmony and insulted the Indian military establishment. In its order dated July 2 (Wednesday), the court concluded that the nature of the posts reflected disrespect not only towards the Prime Minister but also towards the Indian Armed Forces and its officers. 'Though our Constitution grants the right to freedom of speech and expression to every citizen, that freedom does not extend to posting videos and content that insult the Prime Minister, the Indian Military and its officers. Such actions not only cause social disharmony but also promote separatist sentiment and pose a threat to the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India,' the court observed. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.


NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Final Extension": Court Extends Rape Convict Asaram's Interim Bail By A Month
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Thursday extended self-styled godman Asaram's temporary bail by one more month, but made it clear that it would be the "final extension". Sentenced to life imprisonment in a 2013 rape case, Asaram (86), is on bail on medical grounds. The division bench of Justices Ilesh Vora and PM Raval extended Asaram's temporary bail by one more month. Before the bail granted to him by the court on March 28 expired on June 30, the court had granted him an interim extension till July 7. During a hearing on Thursday, Asaram's lawyer sought that the bail be extended for three more months. However, the HC said it would extend the bail for only one more month and that it would be the "final extension". A detailed order is awaited. Asaram had approached the high court when the interim bail granted to him by the Supreme Court till March 31 on medical grounds was coming to an end, as the apex court had directed him to do so if he needed any extension. The division bench of the high court had then delivered a split verdict, after which a third judge to whom the matter was referred granted him three-month temporary bail. In January 2023, a court in Gandhinagar had sentenced Asaram to life imprisonment after convicting him a rape case. Asaram is also serving life sentence in another case of raping a minor girl at his ashram in Rajasthan in 2013. In the present case, he was convicted for raping a woman disciple, who hailed from Surat, on several occasions from 2001 to 2006 when she was living at his ashram at Motera near Ahmedabad. He was convicted under Indian Penal Code sections 376 2 (C) (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 342 (wrongful detention), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 357 (assault) and 506 (criminal intimidation).