The case of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka arose when objections were raised against the use of certain neuro-scientific investigation techniques during criminal investigations. In this case, some techniques were being used without the consent of the accused persons, suspects, or even witnesses. The main issue was whether forcing someone to undergo these tests without their permission violated their fundamental rights.
The techniques in questions were-
- “Narcoanalysis
- Polygraph tests (lie detector tests),
- Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP)”
Issue before the Court
The first issue in the case was whether the forcible use of scientific techniques like narco-analysis, polygraph tests, or brain mapping would amount to self-incrimination, and thus violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against themselves.
The second issue was whether the involuntary administration of such techniques would violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, as it intrudes into a person's mental privacy and autonomy.
Appellant’s Contentions before the Court
The petitioners argued that the use of such scientific methods, even though less violent compared to the traditional third-degree methods of interrogation, still amounts to violating the fundamental right under Article 20(3). They emphasized that even though these methods are presented as "scientific" and "modern," they are still coercive and force the individual to reveal information without their consent.
Respondent’s arguments
The respondents, however, justified the use of these techniques by stating that they are essential for extracting crucial information which may not be obtainable through regular investigative methods. They argued that these tests could help prevent future crimes and would be especially useful where evidence is difficult to collect through conventional means.
Further, they contended that these techniques would improve the investigation process, leading to a higher rate of both successful prosecutions and rightful acquittals, thus strengthening the justice system overall.
Lastly, the respondents asserted that the use of these tests does not amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) because the subject does not actively or verbally provide answers during the tests. As per their view, since the information is drawn out through scientific processes rather than direct verbal testimony, it does not fall within the scope of protection against self-incrimination.
Analysis of the court
In this case, the Court held that forcing a person to undergo such neuroscientific tests without their consent amounts to testimonial compulsion, which is prohibited under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court explained that the protection against self-incrimination exists to make sure that evidence given in court is reliable, voluntary, and respects the dignity of the individual. If someone is forced to undergo these tests, the statements or results might not be genuine and could violate the accused’s integrity.
Importantly, the Court expanded the meaning of "testimonial acts" to include not only spoken or written words but also physiological responses and any conduct revealing personal knowledge. Referring to the older case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1962), the Court confirmed that forcing a person to reveal any personal knowledge, whether orally or otherwise, falls under the protection of Article 20(3).
The Court also drew a line between physical privacy (like during searches and seizures, which are sometimes allowed) and mental privacy, stating that forcibly accessing a person’s mind through intrusive techniques without consent is unconstitutional.
The key observations of the Court were:
- No Forced Administration: Tests like narcoanalysis, polygraph, and BEAP cannot be conducted without free and informed consent.
- Wider Protection Scope: The protection under Article 20(3) applies not just during trial but also during investigations and police interrogations.
- Right to Privacy: Forcing such tests violates a person's right to privacy and autonomy protected under Article 21.
- Limited Evidentiary Value: Even if a person voluntarily undergoes the test, the results cannot be treated as confessions and must be carefully scrutinized before being accepted as evidence.
Concluding Remark
The Selvi judgment addresses a crucial issue about compelled testimony and brings into focus the importance of mental privacy for the first time in Indian constitutional law. The Court's decision marks a significant shift in the way investigations are conducted, ensuring that protections against self-incrimination apply not only to witnesses but also to suspects and accused persons during the earliest stages of the criminal process.
After this case, it has become mandatory to seek the subject's consent before conducting any such scientific test. Moreover, individuals must be fully informed about the procedure and the possible consequences of the tests. Thus, the decision has become a landmark judgment in the history of Article 20, reinforcing the broader protection of human rights during criminal investigations.
