Context:

Recently, the Supreme Court of India set aside a Patna High Court order permitting an involuntary narco test in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025). The apex court reaffirmed that forced narcoanalysis violates constitutional protections, in line with the principles laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010).

About Narco Tests:

• • • A narco test involves the administration of sedative drugs, such as sodium pentothal (a barbiturate), to lower inhibitions and increase the likelihood of information disclosure.
    • Functionally, narcoanalysis is similar to polygraph and brain-mapping tests, as all seek to extract concealed information by reducing conscious mental control.
    • Although the procedure is non-violent, it intrudes into cognitive autonomy and mental privacy, thereby raising serious constitutional, legal, and ethical concerns.

Constitutional Protections Involved:

1.      Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))

• • • •  Protects an accused person from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence against themselves.
      • Forced narco tests violate this right because statements made under drug-induced conditions are not the product of free will.
      •  In the absence of free and informed consent, any information obtained is inadmissible as evidence.

2.      Right to Personal Liberty and Privacy (Article 21):

• • • • Encompasses bodily autonomy, mental privacy, and human dignity.
      • Forced narcoanalysis violates the requirement of “procedure established by law” by failing the tests of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness.
      • This protection is linked to the Golden Triangle of Articles 14, 19, and 21, as articulated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which mandates just, fair, and reasonable procedures.

Judicial Precedents Governing Narco Tests:

1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010):

•         Declared involuntary narco, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests unconstitutional.

•         Laid down mandatory safeguards, including:

o   Consent must be free, informed, and recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.

o   Strict medical and legal protocols must be followed during testing.

o   Test results cannot serve as standalone evidence and require independent corroboration.

2. Subsequent Judicial Reinforcements

•         Manoj Kumar Saini v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) and Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025) reaffirmed that narco test outcomes may only assist investigations and cannot directly establish guilt.

Consent and Ethical Principles:

• • • Informed Consent: Narco tests may be conducted only with the voluntary consent of the accused, including at the stage of defence evidence under Section 253 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). However, there is no absolute right to demand such tests.
    • Ethical Foundations: Drawing upon Kantian ethics, the Court emphasised that forced narcoanalysis violates:

•         Human dignity

•         Bodily and mental integrity

•         Principles of natural justice

Implications for India’s Criminal Justice System:

• • •  Strengthening Rights-Based Policing: Reinforces procedural safeguards, ensuring investigative efficiency does not override fundamental rights.
    • Balancing Victims’ and Accused Persons’ Rights: Judicial oversight promotes both effective investigation and constitutional protection.
    •  Reasserting Judicial Consistency: Continued reliance on Selvi and subsequent rulings ensures doctrinal stability, legal certainty, and protection of civil liberties.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025) underscores that constitutional morality must guide criminal investigations. By reaffirming autonomy, dignity, and personal liberty in the face of coercive investigative techniques, the judgment strengthens India’s rights-based criminal justice framework and reinforces the primacy of the Constitution over expediency.