Involuntary narco tests an intrusion into a person’s mental privacy: Supreme Court
Supreme Court judgment of 2010 on harm of involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test.
- Involuntary administration of narco or lie detector tests is an “intrusion” into a person’s “mental privacy”.
- The consequences of such tests on “individuals from weaker sections of society who are unaware of their fundamental rights and unable to afford legal advice” can be devastating.
- It may involve future abuse, harassment and surveillance, even leakage of the video material to the Press for a “trial by media.”
- Such tests are an affront to human dignity and liberty, and have long-lasting effects.
- “An individual’s decision to make a statement is the product of a private choice and there should be no scope for any other individual to interfere with such autonomy,”
‘Restraint on liberty’
- The judgment in Selvi versus State of Karnataka observed that involuntary administration of these scientific tests was “sufficient to constitute a custodial environment.”
- It amounted to a “restraint on personal liberty.”
- It violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy.
- Forcible interference with a person’s mental processes is not provided for under any statute.
- Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan authored that this test most certainly comes into conflict with the ‘right against self-incrimination’.
- Forcing an individual to undergo any of these tests violates the standard of ‘substantive due process’.
- A threat from authorities or police to employ such techniques creates mental trauma and may prompt a person to make incriminatory statements.
- The conflict was between the desirability of efficient investigation and the preservation of individual liberties.
1.png)
