Author: Ayushi Tripathi, Final Year Student, Amity Law School, Amity University Lucknow Campus
Co-Author: Juhi Saxena, Assistant Professor, Amity Law School, Amity University Lucknow Campus
ABSTRACT
Narcoanalysis, a technique involving the administration of psychoactive substances to induce semi-conscious states in individuals, has emerged as a controversial tool in criminal investigation. Its proponents argue that it aids in uncovering concealed facts and accelerates the investigative process. However, its use raises pressing constitutional concerns, particularly under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees protection against self-incrimination. The involuntary or suggestive nature of statements obtained under the influence of such drugs challenges the foundational principles of voluntariness and mental privacy that underpin this constitutional safeguard.
This article examines the scientific functioning of narcoanalysis and its intersection with legal standards governing admissibility, bodily integrity, and individual rights. Central to the analysis is the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, which declared the involuntary use of narcoanalysis unconstitutional while leaving the door open for further debate on its consensual application. The study also explores the ethical, evidentiary, and human rights dimensions of the practice, comparing India’s stance with international norms.
By critically evaluating these intersecting concerns, the article argues for a cautious and regulated approach. It concludes with policy recommendations, including the need for judicial oversight, procedural safeguards, and statutory clarity to ensure that investigative innovation does not come at the cost of fundamental rights.
Keywords: Narco-Analysis, Self-Incrimination, Article 20(3), Human Rights.
