A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar adjudicated on significant constitutional questions concerning the permissibility and evidentiary value of narco-analysis tests in criminal trials. The case arose from an order of the Patna High Court which permitted the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused persons and witnesses during an ongoing investigation. The Apex Court, invoking constitutional mandates under Articles 20(3) and 21, set aside the High Court’s order, holding that such compelled or even broadly consented-to procedures infringe upon the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty. It reasserted that narco-analysis results, even when voluntary, cannot be the sole basis for conviction and clarified that such procedures are not an indefeasible right of the accused. The Court reinforced jurisprudence laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka and criticized the transformation of bail hearings into quasi-trials. With the invalidation of the High Court’s directive, the Supreme Court reaffirmed constitutional fidelity over investigative adventurism.

Keywords: Narco-analysis test, Right against self-incrimination, Article 20(3), Article 21, Voluntary confession, Constitutional safeguards, Evidence Act, Bail Jurisprudence.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case traces its origins to a troubling disappearance involving dowry-related allegations and the invocation of modern investigative tools to determine truth in criminal probes. On 24 August 2022, an FIR was lodged against the appellant Amlesh Kumar and his family under various provisions of the IPC including Sections 364 and 498A, alleging cruelty and disappearance of the appellant’s wife. Despite prolonged investigation, the missing person remained untraced. While entertaining a bail application by the appellant, the Patna High Court accepted a submission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) to subject all accused and witnesses to narco-analysis tests, prompting the current constitutional scrutiny.

The appellant challenged the High Court’s direction, arguing that such investigative measures violate the binding precedent of Selvi v. State of Karnataka, wherein the Apex Court deemed involuntary narco-tests unconstitutional. The case thus became a battleground for testing the scope of Articles 20(3) and 21, particularly the right against self-incrimination and procedural liberty, within India’s evolving criminal jurisprudence. At stake was whether investigative urgency could override constitutionally enshrined liberties, and whether bail proceedings could accommodate invasive forensic procedures. This judgment also serves as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to due process over investigational expediency.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The dispute stems from an FIR registered as No. 545/2022 under Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506, 34 IPC against Amlesh Kumar and his relatives. The complainant alleged that Amlesh’s wife, married to him in December 2020, was subject to dowry harassment and physical abuse. On 22 August 2022, the complainant received a call from the appellant stating that his wife had absconded from the matrimonial home. Despite search efforts, the woman remained untraceable.

Contrarily, the appellant claimed that on 21 August 2022, while travelling to Ayodhya, his wife disembarked at Baabali Chawk for a nature’s call and never returned. He registered a general diary entry (GD No. 038) at P.S. Jahangir Ganj on 28 August 2022. Importantly, the woman has not been located to date. Meanwhile, the High Court granted bail to the appellant’s family members.

However, the appellant’s own bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court based on confessional statements by co-accused alleging they disposed of the woman’s body in River Saryu. Subsequently, the appellant moved the Patna High Court. In an interim order dated 9 November 2023, the High Court accepted the SDPO’s submission to conduct narco-analysis on all accused and witnesses, setting the matter for further hearing.

Challenging this directive, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that such direction violated Selvi v. State of Karnataka, breaching his Article 20(3) and Article 21 rights.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could have accepted the SDPO’s submission to conduct narco-analysis tests on the accused and witnesses during the investigation?

ii. Whether a report of a voluntary narco-analysis test can form the sole basis of conviction in the absence of other corroborative evidence?

iii. Whether an accused can voluntarily seek a narco-analysis test as a matter of an indefeasible legal right?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the petitioner submitted that the High Court’s directive permitting narco-analysis tests at the stage of bail hearing was grossly erroneous, unconstitutional, and violated established principles laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263. They argued that such tests amount to compelled testimony, falling squarely within the bar under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects an accused from being forced to be a witness against oneself. The petitioner contended that even if a test is conducted voluntarily, it cannot be the sole basis for a conviction without corroborative evidentiary support, per the jurisprudence in Vinobhai v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 178.

Furthermore, the appellant’s legal team argued that a bail proceeding under Section 439 CrPC does not empower a court to direct investigative strategies, especially those involving potential rights violations. The acceptance of such a suggestion by the SDPO was a clear judicial overreach, amounting to mini-trial practices, which have been condemned in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat (2019) 14 SCC 522.

The counsel also emphasized that the appellant had already spent substantial time in custody without any discovery of the missing woman. His family members were released on bail, and yet, the appellant was being subjected to more stringent and invasive processes. They reiterated that the High Court’s direction to conduct narco-tests lacked judicial propriety and violated the principles of substantive due process under Article 21.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent-State defended the High Court’s directive on the ground that modern investigative techniques like narco-analysis were essential in complex criminal cases, especially where other leads had gone cold. They submitted that the order did not mandate coercive testing but was a procedural tool to facilitate the investigation, stressing that the test could aid in locating the missing woman.

The State further argued that the test could be conducted with the accused’s consent, which would render the constitutional objections under Article 20(3) inapplicable. It was submitted that in cases involving heinous crimes, especially disappearance and possible homicide, police must be given sufficient leeway to deploy scientific tools. They invoked the need for evolving investigative standards to meet societal needs and cited the public interest in speedy and effective investigation.

Moreover, the State contended that the order was interim in nature, merely recording an intention to use narco-analysis tests, subject to procedural adherence and consent. It did not constitute a binding directive or mandate coercion. Thus, the respondent argued that the order was not in violation of constitutional principles.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India – Protection against self-incrimination.

ii. Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty, including the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

iii. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Admissibility of information discovered through statements of the accused.

iv. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Powers of High Court or Sessions Court regarding bail.

v. Section 233 CrPC – Right of accused to present evidence in defence during trial.

vi. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 – Leading case on legality of narco-analysis, polygraph, and BEAP tests.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned interim order of the Patna High Court dated 9 November 2023. The Court held that the High Court had committed a grave error by accepting the SDPO’s proposal to conduct narco-analysis on all accused and witnesses, especially in a bail proceeding. Relying on Selvi (2010) 7 SCC 263, it reiterated that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21, and even voluntary tests require strict safeguards and judicial oversight.

It clarified that bail hearings are not the forum to direct investigative methods, especially those infringing upon bodily autonomy. In Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat, the Court had condemned such transformation of bail hearings into mini-trials. Further, the Court emphasized that reports of voluntary narco-tests cannot be the sole basis of conviction, and information extracted must be corroborated with additional evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Apex Court further observed that the accused has no indefeasible right to demand a narco-analysis test; the court must assess the stage of trial, genuineness of consent, and protective measures. Ultimately, the Court ordered that the bail application be decided afresh in accordance with law, without reliance on any narco-test proposal.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The principal ratio decidendi laid down is that courts cannot direct or permit investigative authorities to undertake narco-analysis tests, especially during bail proceedings, without violating Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The judgment fortified the precedent in Selvi, stating that non-consensual narco-analysis is impermissible and that even voluntary tests cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration under Section 27.

Additionally, it was held that bail hearings under Section 439 CrPC must confine themselves to examining prima facie material, period of custody, and likelihood of tampering evidence—not enter into an adjudication on the efficacy of forensic tools. The use of such investigative techniques, while modern, cannot override personal liberty and constitutional due process.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed in passing that India’s criminal investigation framework must evolve to adopt modern scientific tools, but this must be balanced against constitutional values. The judgment stressed the vulnerability of socio-economically weaker individuals, who may consent under duress or deception. It acknowledged the dangers of misuse, such as investigators using narco-analysis threats to elicit confessions or extract cooperation.

The Court also discussed the divergent views of various High Courts on the right of an accused to demand such tests. It clarified that undergoing narco-analysis is not a constitutional or statutory right, and applications for the same must undergo judicial scrutiny. The opinion emphasized that mere consent is not enough; procedural fairness, medical supervision, and judicial authorization are imperative.

c. GUIDELINES

The Court reiterated the guidelines issued in Selvi for conducting narco-analysis or similar tests. These include:

i. No narco-analysis tests shall be administered without informed and voluntary consent of the accused.

ii. The accused must be informed about physical, emotional, and legal consequences of the test.

iii. Consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate with representation by legal counsel.

iv. The Magistrate must evaluate the nature of detention and interrogation circumstances before permitting the test.

v. The test must be conducted by an independent medical facility, not investigative agencies.

vi. The entire procedure must be videographed, with proper documentation of consent and disclosures.

vii. Only discoveries made as a result of such tests, and not the statements per se, can be admitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

viii. These safeguards are mandatory even when the test is initiated by the accused voluntarily.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment marks a significant reaffirmation of constitutional jurisprudence that places individual rights above state convenience, even in criminal justice administration. The Supreme Court took a clear stance that neither courts nor investigating agencies can bypass due process by relying on intrusive investigative tools like narco-analysis, without adhering to stringent constitutional and procedural safeguards.

It criticized the High Court for transforming a bail application into an investigatory platform, a tendency increasingly observed in lower courts dealing with sensational or high-profile cases. The judgment preserves the sanctity of Article 20(3), protects bodily and mental autonomy under Article 21, and reiterates the limited evidentiary utility of forensic interrogation.

The judgment is not anti-science but pro-rule of law. It recognizes the need for advanced tools but reminds stakeholders that rights violations in pursuit of truth do not align with democratic constitutionalism. By invalidating the High Court’s overreach, the Court underlined that procedural justice is not an obstacle but a safeguard against authoritarianism. It also provided a roadmap for balancing investigative necessity with individual dignity.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263
ii. Vinobhai v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 178
iii. Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984
iv. Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 522
v. Rajesh Talwar v. CBI, 2013 SCC Online All 5533
vi. Dominic Luis v. State, 2014 SCC Online Bom 452
vii. Mohd. Samir v. State, 2017 SCC Online Bom 19
viii. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 SCC Online Del 3816
ix. Louis v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC Online Ker 4519
x. State of Gujarat v. Sanjay Kumar Kanchanlal Desai, 2014 SCC Online Guj 6150
xi. Navjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2015 SCC Online P&H 15351
xii. Sunil Bhatt v. State, 2022 SCC Online Raj 1443

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India – Articles 20(3), 21
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 233, 439
iii. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27
iv. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506, 34