Forced Narcoanalysis, Polygraph and BEAP Tests Violate Articles 20(3) and 21: Supreme Court

A batch of criminal appeals challenged the involuntary use of narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test on accused persons, suspects and witnesses (paras 1-2). One impugned judgment had held that polygraph and BEAP results are not testimonial compulsion because no verbal answers are given, and that narcoanalysis revelations escape Article 20(3) because their inculpatory or exculpatory nature is unknown when the test is done (para 3). The Union, the CBI and the State defended compulsory testing (para 6). The questions were whether such tests violate Article 20(3) and whether they are a reasonable restriction on personal liberty under Article 21 (para 7).

Article 20(3) extends to the investigation stage, as held in Nandini Satpathy, and with Section 161(2) CrPC protects accused persons, suspects and witnesses (paras 102, 110, 221). The Court rejected the reasoning that compulsion is allowed because results may prove exculpatory (paras 122, 130). Narcoanalysis plainly involves a testimonial act (para 130). Applying Kathi Kalu Oghad, the controlling precedent (para 136), polygraph and BEAP results are also "personal testimony", being a means of imparting personal knowledge, so all three tests attract Article 20(3) (paras 158, 165). They cannot be read into "and such other tests" in the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 CrPC, which covers only examination of physical evidence (paras 149, 152). Forcible interference with mental processes violates privacy (para 193), would amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and conflicts with the right to fair trial (para 222). Victims of offences cannot be compelled either (para 214). A compelling public interest cannot dilute these rights (paras 220, 222).