The method of Narco-Analysis as a portion of Criminal Investigation System was started seven old ages ago in India, and was besides accompanied by the increased usage of lie-detection proving used on felons. It was non taken up as an issue by human rights administrations until 2007 when extremist militants were arrested and subjected to Narco-Analysis. There are four constituents in the human rights, or the legal, definition of anguish: the first that anguish produces physical/mental agony and is a corrupting intervention. The 2nd that it is ever deliberately inflicted ; the 3rd that it is inflicted for certain intents such as acquiring information, confession, etc. , and the 4th that it is inflicted by an official histrion or an histrion moving on behalf of an official. Narco-Analysis involves all these four constituents. Narco-Analysis produces anguish every bit clearly as the deadly injection produces decease. Narco-Analysis is gnawing the really ethical nucleus of the medical profession.


As scientific discipline has outpaced the development of jurisprudence or at least the laymans apprehension of it, there is ineluctable complexness sing what can be admitted as grounds in tribunal. Narco-Analysis is one such scientific development that has become an progressively, possibly alarmingly, common term in India. Narco-Analysis poses several inquiries at the intersection of jurisprudence, medical specialty and moralss. Is the process for Narco-Analysis is violative of the rights against ego inculpation, guaranteed under Article 20 ( 3 ) of the Constitution. It figured conspicuously in the intelligence late when it became oculus of storm and sparked off the argument when media played tapes of Telgi, accused subjected to Narco-Analysis process.

Narco-Analysis Trial:

In the instance of US vs. Solomon[ 1 ]there was a elaborate treatment on the subject of Narco-Analysis. In this instance the adept sentiment given to the tribunal established that truth serum trial is by and large accepted as an fact-finding technique. It has been proved by scientific experimentation that if a individual is administered with such drugs which may stamp down his logical thinking or power to believe, he may be made to state the truth. Police relies on Narco-Analysis trial as a scientific device helping the procedure of probe, which is non merely helpful in work outing pending condemnable instances but besides helps in offense bar. Narco-Analysis being a scientific attack is preferred over traditional 3rd grade method. But on the other manus inquiries are raised with respect to the genuineness of grounds collected through such process of probe. Its application is besides questioned as it suffers from assorted drawbacks such as:

The individual carry oning the trial has to be a extremely qualified doctor. It is really indispensable to administrate right step of dosage, as overdose may turn out to be fatal and may even ensue in decease of the suspect[ 2 ]. The trial can neglect if the suspect is an maltreater or regular user of certain sort of narcotic substances.

It need non be said that bar of offense and penalty for the offense are the responsibilities of the State. Fetters on these responsibilities can be put merely in utmost instances where the protection of cardinal rights weighs more than the cardinal responsibility dramatis personae on the State[ 3 ]. Furthermore, every individual is required to supply information sing offenses.[ 4 ]As scientific discipline has outpaced the development of jurisprudence, there is ineluctable complexness sing what can be admitted as grounds in the tribunal of jurisprudence. Narco-Analysis is one such scientific development that has become an progressively common term in India.

Narco-Analysis and Legal Aspects:

In any condemnable probe, question of the suspects and accused dramas a critical function in pull outing the truth from them[ 5 ]. From clip immemorial, several methods, most of which were based on some signifier of anguish, have been used by the investigation bureaus to arouse information from the accused and the suspects. With the promotion of scientific discipline and engineering, sophisticated methods of prevarication sensing have been developed which do off with the usage of “ 3rd degree anguish ” by the constabulary. The scientific tools of question namely- the Lie Detector or the Polygraph Test, the P300 or the Brain Mapping Test, and the Narco-Analysis[ 6 ]or the Truth Serum Test are the three chief trials that have late been developed for pull outing confessions. These psychoanalytical trials are besides used to construe the behavior of the condemnable ( or the suspect ) and confirm the look intoing officers ‘ observations.

The method of Narco-Analysis impinges on the right to life and autonomy under Article 21 and the right to non to be a informant against oneself under Article 20 ( 3 ) of the Constitution. The redress in jurisprudence for being illicitly detained and for the enforcement of the right to life is the writ of habeas corpus – which literally means bring forthing the organic structure of the individual. The right to life is per se connected to the inviolability of the organic structure. Even when a physician has to execute a process which involves presenting a chemical in your organic structure as in anaesthesia, or cutting open the organic structure to execute an operation to bring around, the consent of the patient is required. Thus we find that even in processs performed for the public assistance of a patient, consent of the person is required for any invasion of the organic structure. The debut of Na thiopental in the organic structure of a individual without his/ her consent for Narco-Analysis violates non merely the right against self-incrimination but the right to life itself.

The disposal of drugs in the organic structure and subsequent Narco-Analysis without the consent of the person has been upheld by in three instances by two high tribunals. The Madras High Court in the instance of Dinesh Dalmia[ 7 ]in 2006 has held narco-analysis is non testimony by irresistible impulse. The logical thinking offered by the tribunal is that the accused individual “ may be taken to the research lab for such trials against his will, but the disclosure during trials is voluntary ” .

The disclosures during Narco-Analysis are pronounced as voluntary by the tribunal. It seems to be really much like “ a individual is compelled to attest voluntarily ” – a contradiction in footings. If we take this logical thinking to the domain of the usage of 3rd degree methods, it is like bring downing physical anguish on a individual boulder clay he/ she breaks down and so terming the disclosures as “ voluntary confession ” .

The 2nd instance is of Abdul Karim Telgi[ 8 ]where the Bombay High Court says that certain physical trials affecting minimum bodily harm like Narco-Analysis and Brain Mapping do non go against the cardinal right against self-incrimination embodied in Article 20 ( 3 ) of the Constitution. Courts, specially the higher bench, do non merely make up one’s mind single instances but their judgements enunciate rules of jurisprudence applicable in general. In the Telgi instance, the rule being laid down appears to be that methods which inflict minimum bodily injury are allowable. Again, if we take this rule to the kingdom of usage of third-degree methods it might help us in looking at the deductions. In constitutional and condemnable law, the usage of anguish has unambiguously been looked upon as illegal and offensive of the cardinal right to life and the right of the accused against self-incrimination.

Narco-Analysis is Nothing but a Form of Anguish

In the context of physical anguish, the reading of ‘minimal organic structure injury ‘ to pull out information is ill-defined. The present classs in jurisprudence are ‘simple injury ‘ and ‘grievous injury ‘ . Or, in footings of disablement, – doing impermanent or lasting disablement. Using the enunciated rule of minimum bodily harm – is it that doing simple hurt or doing a impermanent disablement to pull out information in the class of probe would be allowable? Would striping a individual of slumber for long clip periods in order to acquire a confession be okay in the eyes of jurisprudence? Enunciation of such a rule is a risky going from the present consensus with regard to the illegality of third-degree methods as a tool of probe and aggregation of grounds.

The UN definition of anguish[ 9 ]has four constituents. The first constituent says that anguish produces physical/mental agony and is a corrupting intervention. The 2nd one says that it is ever deliberately inflicted. The 3rd constituent says that it is inflicted for certain intents such as acquiring information, confession, etc. And the 4th constituent says that it is inflicted by an official histrion or an histrion moving on behalf of an functionary. These are the four major constituents in the human rights, or the legal, definition of anguish. When you look at Narco-Analysis, you will happen that all these four constituents are truly satisfied. It is degrading because it intentionally uses a drug that attempts to change the province of head of a individual against his/her wants. It produces mental agony in an person, more so if he or she discovers that some of his or her phantasy revealed in the process is used to do accusal of existent offense[ 10 ].

In the present Indian status, it is even more so because the constabulary or forensic research lab have released video cartridge holders of the existent Narco-Analysis of a individual to the media[ 11 ], the same acquiring played out on the Television repeatedly when the same is non even admissible as grounds in the tribunal of jurisprudence. Thus, even before a tribunal test begins, a individual is tried in the media, therefore bring downing a high degree of mental agony and stigmatization of the person by the society. The remainder of the constituents of the definition are easy satisfied.

Indeed, it is intentionally inflicted-so intentionally that it is consistently done in an operation theater and non in a prison or police lock-up. It is besides a method non merely to pull out information but besides to coerce confessions. And it is ever done by the constabulary through its forensic research lab and forces employed at that place, along with the physicians in a infirmary who are specifically appointed by the constabulary to make the process.

We ever thought of anguish as a gory, blood-soaked and barbarian manner of handling a individual. So we are frequently misled into believing that anything, which does non look gory, slop blood or interruption castanetss, can non be barbarian and a signifier of anguish. Anguish, in fact remains torture even if it does non slop blood, interrupt castanetss and is done in unfertile, air-conditioned operation theaters. What is true of the process for decease punishment, which moved from gory and bloody firing squads and the closure by compartment to electric chair and unfertile deadly injections, holds true for anguish every bit good. Narco-Analysis produces anguish every bit clearly as the deadly injection produces decease.

Indian Courts on Narco-Analysis:

The Indian Courts have so far refused to acknowledge the Narco Analysis as grounds, but Narco Analysis is being carried out by the research workers. The ground is that although confession made to the constabulary or in the presence of constabulary is non admissible in tribunals, the information is admissible by which an instrument or object used in committee of offense is discovered. This is clear from the diction of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[ 12 ]. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is founded on the rule that if the confession of the accused is supported by the find of a fact, the confession may be presumed to be true, and non to hold been extracted. It comes into operation merely: ( I ) if and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in effect of information received from an accused individual in constabulary detention ; and ( two ) if the information relates clearly to the fact discovered. If the self-incriminatory information given by an accused individual is without any menace that will be admissible as grounds and will non be hit by Article 20 ( 3 ) .

Section 156 ( 1 ) of the Code of Criminal Procedure[ 13 ]which reads “ Police officer ‘s power to look into knowable instances ” provinces that any officer in charge of a constabulary station without the order of a Magistrate can look into any knowable instance which a Court has power to ask into or seek under the commissariats of Chapter XIII. “ Investigation ” as defined in Section 2 ( H ) of Cr.P.C includes all the proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the aggregation of grounds conducted by a Police Officer or by any individual ( other than a Magistrate ) who is authorised by a Magistrate. Thus, aggregation of grounds by Police Officer is permitted under jurisprudence. Conducting Narco-Analysis Test on an accused is besides a portion in this procedure of aggregation of grounds by the investigation bureau. The Karnataka High Court besides made a similar observation in the instance of Smt. Selvi and Ors v. State by Koramangala Police Station[ 14 ]. This proviso is besides constitutionally valid.


The usage of Narco-Analysis as an fact-finding tool or as grounds is offensive of the right to life, autonomy and the right against self-incrimination. Viewed from the point of position of condemnable tests, the undependability of the process and the impact of the drugs on the mind may ensue in abortion of justness and strong belief of guiltless individuals. The logic of ‘minimal bodily injury ‘ being allowable for extraction of information offered for continuing Narco-Analysis has grave deductions as to the usage of coercive third-degree methods, particularly in the context of turning kerbs on rights in the name of undertaking terrorist act. The democratic rights motion must take up a sustained run against the usage of invasive methods like Narco-Analysis and Brain Mapping Trials.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *