In this case, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of a number of evidence collection methods, such as polygraph testing, BEAP (Brain Electrical Activation Profile), sometimes known as “brain mapping,” and narcoanalysis. The accused person’s right to life and personal liberty according to article 21 of the indian constitution, as well as their right against self incrimination under Article 20(3), were both infringed by the Court’s ruling that the employment of such neuroscientific investigative procedures constituted testimonial coercion.
selvi vs state of karnataka Case Facts
- In this particular case, the accused, suspects, and witnesses in the investigation were put to neuroscientific testing without their agreement, and the Supreme Court granted a special leave petition in response to those complaints.
- The Court examined whether using neuroscientific tests, such as polygraphs, BEAP, or “brain mapping,” and narcoanalysis, to get evidence was constitutional.
- In order to gauge lying or deceit, the polygraph exam measures physiological reactions such as respiration, blood pressure, pulse, and galvanic skin resistance.
- In the narco-analysis test, sodium pentothal is injected intravenously to induce a hypnotic trance that reduces inhibition in the individual. The BEAP assesses a subject’s level of familiarity with certain material by measuring brain activity in reaction to pre-selected stimuli.
selvi vs state of karnataka Issues
- Does the “right against self incrimination” listed in article 20(3) of the indian constitution apply to the involuntary administration of the contested techniques?
- Is there a chance the subject will be implicated as a result of the investigation’s use of the contested techniques?
- Whether the outcomes of the contested methods qualify as “testimonial compulsion” and are therefore subject to article 20(3) of the indian constitution ‘s bar?
- Is there a legitimate way to limit “personal liberty” as defined by article 21 of the indian constitution if the contested techniques are administered involuntarily?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners claim that their Article 20(3) right to “prevent self-incrimination” was breached when people under pressure applied neuroscientific treatments. The petitioners claimed that the addition of “substantive due process” increased the scope of “personal liberty” as defined by Article 21.
- Additionally, the petitioners argued that forcing someone to use the contested methods would violate Article 21’s prohibition against cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Not to mention, they claimed that the suggested tactics would infringe upon the test subjects’ rights to their bodily and mental privacy.
- The petitioners argued that there was no reason to believe the evidence obtained through the examinations because they lacked scientific validity and were only confirmatory in nature. They depended on empirical research that questioned the validity of the explanation these methods offered.
Respondent:
- According to the respondents, these tests were necessary in order to collect data that would aid in the gathering of evidence by the investigating authorities and serve as a deterrent to crime.
- They added that doing the tests did not cause any bodily harm and that the information was solely utilized for scientific purposes.
selvi vs state of karnataka Judgment
- The Indian Supreme Court held in the selvi vs state of karnataka case that it is unlawful to employ polygraph testing, brain mapping, and narcoanalysis on defendants without their agreement.
- The ‘right against self incrimination’ according to article 20(3) of the indian constitution as well as the ‘right to privacy’ under article 21 of the indian constitution are violated, the court said.
- The ultimate ruling established a strong legal precedent for the admission of evidence and the defense of individual freedoms in India, ruling that any evidence collected using these techniques without willing permission could not be entered in court.
Human civilization has greatly benefited from technological advancements, which have improved all aspects of life. It has far exceeded humankind’s and law’s advancements. The citizens’ fundamental rights are occasionally violated by the usage of technology. The forced use of BEAP, narcoanalysis, and polygraph testing against suspects during investigations is a great illustration of how these procedures violate their right under article 20(3) of the indian constitution against being forced to testify against themselves.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court carefully weighed technology and citizens’ fundamental rights in the current case of selvi v. state of karnataka. In the current case, the Apex Court ruled against the involuntary application of the contested procedures. In compliance with the rights granted by Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, the court mandated that the subject give their consent in order to administer these tests.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
