Question 1

If an accused voluntarily undergoes a narco test, their recorded confession or denial can be played in court as direct proof of their innocence.

Accepted Answer

Direct statements made under the influence of truth serums (like sodium pentothal) are never admissible as substantive evidence, even if the test was voluntary. Only the subsequent physical discoveries derived from those statements are admissible.

Question 2

Narco-analysis, polygraphs, and brain-mapping are medically identical procedures that the courts treat the same way.

Accepted Answer

Medically, they are entirely different. Narco-analysis involves injecting psychoactive drugs, polygraphs measure physiological stress (sweat, heart rate), and brain-mapping tracks neurological P300 waves. However, legally, the Supreme Court groups them together as 'scientific interrogations' subject to the same constitutional restrictions.

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and the law on scientific interrogations in India:
1. The Supreme Court established that an accused person possesses an absolute, statutory right to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test to prove their innocence.
2. Involuntary administration of a narco-analysis test violates an individual's right to mental privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Information directly spoken and recorded during a voluntary narco-analysis test is admissible as substantive evidence in a trial.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

(a) Only one — Statement 1 is incorrect: The Supreme Court clarified in Amlesh Kumar (2025) that while an accused can request a voluntary test, it is NOT an absolute or indefeasible right; it is subject to judicial discretion. Statement 2 is correct: As established in Selvi (2010) and reaffirmed in Amlesh Kumar, forced tests violate both Article 20(3) and Article 21 (mental privacy). Statement 3 is incorrect: Direct statements made under narco-analysis are never admissible as substantive evidence. Only facts discovered subsequently as a result of those statements are admissible under Section 27 of the IEA (or equivalent BSA section). Therefore, only statement 2 is correct.

Question 4

Match the legal provisions and cases in List I with their correct association regarding criminal investigations in List II:

List I:
A. Article 20(3)
B. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
C. Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025)
D. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act (Sec 23 BSA)

List II:
1. Admissibility of facts discovered as a result of information received from an accused
2. Banned the involuntary use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests
3. Right against self-incrimination
4. Clarified that bail hearings cannot be used to authorise invasive scientific interrogations

Select the correct code:

Accepted Answer

(a) A-3, B-2, C-4, D-1 — Article 20(3) of the Constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination (A-3). Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) is the landmark judgment that banned involuntary scientific interrogations (B-2). Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025) clarified that bail hearings are not the stage to order narco tests and that voluntary tests are not an absolute right (C-4). Section 27 of the IEA (now Sec 23 BSA) deals with how much of an information received from an accused (like during a voluntary narco test) may be proved based on subsequent discoveries (D-1).

Question 5

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court in 2025 explicitly prohibited lower courts from accepting police proposals for narco-analysis tests during bail hearings.
Reason (R): Bail proceedings are strictly meant to assess the necessity of detention and risk of flight, and authorising invasive investigative procedures during such hearings converts them into unlawful mini-trials.

Select the correct answer:

Accepted Answer

(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A. — Both statements are correct. In Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025), the Supreme Court struck down a Patna High Court order that allowed a narco-analysis test during a Section 439 CrPC bail hearing. The Court reasoned that a bail hearing has a very limited ambit (assessing gravity of offence, evidence tampering risks, etc.) and allowing investigative directives like narco tests oversteps constitutional boundaries, improperly turning bail hearings into mini-trials.

SC Clarifies Right to Voluntary Narco-Analysis

10th Anniversary of Beti Bachao Beti Padhao