Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010)
🧑⚖️ Selvi v. State of Karnataka
(2010) 7 SCC 263 | Supreme Court of India
⚖️ Background:
The police used narco-analysis, polygraph tests (lie detector), and brain mapping tests on accused persons without their consent.
The accused argued that these techniques violated their fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 14 (right to equality).
The main question was: Can the State compel an accused to undergo these tests without consent?
🔍 Issues before the Court:
Whether narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping violate the constitutional rights of an accused?
Can such tests be conducted without the consent of the accused?
Are the results of these tests admissible as evidence in court?
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
1. Right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)):
The tests involve the use of involuntary techniques that force the accused to speak or react, which is a violation of Article 20(3).
Compelling an accused to undergo such tests amounts to self-incrimination and is therefore unconstitutional.
2. Right to personal liberty (Article 21):
The tests violate personal autonomy and human dignity.
The right to privacy and bodily integrity prohibits forced physical or mental examinations.
3. Consent is essential:
Such tests can only be conducted if the accused voluntarily consents after being fully informed.
Forced or coerced tests are invalid.
4. Admissibility of evidence:
Results from involuntary tests cannot be admitted as evidence in court.
Even voluntary tests may be considered only as a starting point for investigation, not conclusive proof.
📝 Significance of the Case:
It strengthened the protection of individual rights under the Indian Constitution.
Set important limits on investigative methods by the police.
Affirmed the principle that human dignity and bodily integrity are inviolable.
Prevented abuse of “scientific” techniques to extract confessions.
📌 Summary Table:
| Aspect | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Narco-analysis | Violates Article 20(3) without consent |
| Polygraph test | Violates Article 20(3) without consent |
| Brain mapping | Violates Article 20(3) without consent |
| Consent | Mandatory before conducting tests |
| Evidence admissibility | Results from involuntary tests are inadmissible |
RELATED Blog
0 comments