12.12.2025

Narco Tests

Context

The Supreme Court of India set aside a Patna High Court order regarding the Amlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar case (2025). The High Court had erroneously accepted a proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused during a bail hearing, prompting the Supreme Court to reaffirm fundamental constitutional rights.

What is a Narco Test?

A narco-analysis test is an investigative technique that involves injecting psychoactive drugs, typically Sodium Pentothal (a barbiturate), into the body. The drug lowers the subject's inhibitions and places them in a hypnotic or semi-conscious trance, supposedly making them more likely to reveal information.

The Ruling: Amlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2025)

• Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that involuntary (forced) Narco tests are unconstitutional.
• Action: The Court set aside the Patna High Court's order, stating that a court cannot order or approve such an invasive test, especially during a bail hearing, which has a limited scope.
• Precedent Reaffirmed: The judgment strongly reaffirmed the landmark 2010 Selvi vs. State of Karnataka ruling, which prohibited the forced administration of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping tests.

Constitutional Violations Identified

Forced Narco tests violate the core guarantees of fundamental rights:

1. Article 20(3): Protection against Self-Incrimination. A person cannot be compelled to be a witness against themselves (Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Accusare). Since the subject lacks conscious control over their responses, a forced test amounts to testimonial compulsion.
2. Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Forced tests violate mental privacy, bodily integrity, and personal autonomy. Any procedure restraining liberty must satisfy the requirement of 'substantive due process' (fair, just, and reasonable).
3. Golden Triangle: Forced tests violate the combined framework of Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom), and 21 (Life), which ensures constitutional liberties are protected against arbitrary state action.

Admissibility & Procedure

• Voluntary Only: A test is permissible only if the accused consents voluntarily. This consent must be:
  • Free and informed.
  • Recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.
  • Accompanied by access to legal counsel and medical safeguards.
• No Absolute Right: The Court clarified that an accused does not have an absolute or indefeasible right to demand a narco-test for their defense. Such a request can only be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage (when leading defence evidence) and is subject to the court's careful assessment.
• Evidentiary Value:
  • Results of a narco test are not standalone admissible evidence (they cannot directly establish guilt).
  • They are considered weak evidence because the subject lacks conscious control.
  • Only information/facts discovered subsequently based on the voluntary test may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but this information must also be corroborated by independent evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling in Amlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar is a timely and significant reaffirmation of fundamental rights in the face of increasingly invasive investigative demands. It reiterates that constitutional protection of dignity and liberty cannot be compromised for the sake of investigative convenience, cementing the principle established in the Selvi judgment regarding the limited and conditional use of narco-analysis in India's criminal justice system.