The criminal justice system is founded on a slew of jurisprudential principles that protect the rights of suspects and accused. These include the right against self-incrimination, the right to remain silent, and the right against providing information under physical or mental pressure. Despite this, invasive procedures such as narcoanalysis, brain-mapping, and polygraph tests have been routinely used by the police — and, shockingly, with the approval of the courts. In holding that the forcible use of these tests is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of India has drawn attention to the inherent violence in such investigative procedures, which constitute a gross abuse of human rights. The landmark 251-page judgment arrives at two broad legal conclusions. First, such coercive testing violates Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, which stipulates “no person accused of an offence shall stand witness against himself.” Secondly, it is an infringement of the right to personal liberty as understood in the context of Article 21, in particular the right to privacy, the right to a free trial, and the right against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The court has made it clear that nobody can be compelled to undergo narcoanalysis, brain mapping, or lie detector tests and that any statements made during those procedures are not admissible as evidence. Such tests are permissible only when taken voluntarily. But even in such cases, they must be conducted in strict compliance with the National Human Rights Commission's Guidelines for the Administration of the Polygraph Test — which includes safeguards such as the mandatory recording of consent before a magistrate and the conduct of all tests by an independent agency. Proponents of the three tests, including those who concede that they sometimes produce false results, advance pragmatic arguments for their retention. They claim that the tests are a softer alternative to third degree methods of interrogation, which might become further entrenched in their absence. They also argue that these tests can serve the public interest in extraordinary situations: they can help uncover terror plots and prevent devastating attacks. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has not dismissed such arguments out of hand. Instead, it has taken the high ground to hold that as a court of law, it can only seek to preserve the balance between the competing interests of personal liberty and public safety, as they are reflected in the Constitution. The judgment must be acclaimed as a major blow for democratic and human rights in the face of invasive procedures that violate the mind.
Keywords: violence, Supreme Court
This is landmark judgement protecting the human rights . This provision have been and is likely to be misused by investigating agencies, by asking leading questions , with single aim of proving the accused guilty.
There many other accepatble scintific means such as DNA test avaialable to investigating agencies to use instead.
The Supreme Court has given a landmark judgment to prevent the flagrant misuse of Human Rights by the prosecutors in this country.Narcotic tests are based on the flimsy premise that a person under Narcotic influence can recall past events correctly and gushes out the truth at the command of the interrogators. That is absolutely wrong. A person forced into narcotic trance merely blabbers incoherently.He cannot be regarded as the same individual that he was before he was forced into trance. Perhaps the prosecutors think that they could use this mindless situation of their victim to extract some deposition favorable to their needs. I cannot think of a more ignoble misuse of Human Rights. I am only wondering why it took so long for the people to test the legality of violating this sacred Human right by the prosecutors in this country. May this be the beginning of a series of enlightened Human Rights judgments!
Criminal intimidation is a grave crime and is punishable under law.In such a case, how can the "protectors" of law use it?
About the Fact it is true that Judgement about Criminal justice system
Must be Faithful with the announced culprit.
Must be culprit has his own rights to speak about the Crime where he accused. but for Justice must be Slow but not too aggressive with these type of culprits.....
but for Terroists,Murders, Serious killers should be go with Narco test..... Because ths is imporant for Sociol Enviornment..
Deciding on the constitutional validity of lie detector and narco analysis tests,the supreme court was indeed caught in a catch-22 situation.Police and security agencies have to battle limitations from the very start of the investigation.Technology is employed by terror operatives and groups with ease and sophistication to execute their plans.Police is being denied the assistance of some scientific devices for discovering crucial leads in a case.The tests do not count as evidence at all in a court of law.Their utility could have been approved in more clear terms by the court.This issue is sure to return sometime in future before the court again.The balance sought to be achieved between security concerns and human rights eludes us for the present.
Please Email the Editor