THE Supreme Court has held that narco-analysis, polygraph and brain mapping tests on an accused are illegal. The court, however, permitted use of such techniques in criminal cases on consent and with some safeguards.
“If we were to permit the forcible administration of these techniques, it could be the first step on a very slippery-slope as far as the standards of police behaviour is concerned,” the apex court said in a significant judgement on Wednesday.
“We hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty,” said a bench comprising chief justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice R V Raveendran and Justice J M Panchal.
The bench said, “our conclusion is that the results obtained through the involuntary administration of either of the impugned tests (the narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and BEAP test) come within the scope of `testimonial compulsion,’ thereby attracting the protective shield of Article 20(3).”
The court rejected the plea of various state governments which had said that administering these techniques on the accused does not cause any bodily harm and that the extracted information will be used only for strengthening investigation.
It was pleaded before the court that such techniques were in alternative to third degree of torture and should be permitted.
“This is a circular line of reasoning since one form of improper behaviour is sought to be replaced by another. What this will result in is that investigators will increasingly seek reliance on the impugned techniques rather than engaging in a thorough investigation.
The widespread use of `third-degree’ interrogation methods so as to speak is a separate problem and needs to be tackled through long-term solutions such as more emphasis on the protection of human rights during police training, providing adequate resources for investigators and stronger accountability measures when such abuses do take place” remarked Justice Balakrishnan writing the verdict for the bench.
“Therefore, it is our considered opinion that subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary manner violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy. Forcible interference with a person’s mental processes is not provided for under any statute and it most certainly comes into conflict with the right a gainst self-incrimination,“ the court said in its elaborate 251 page of judgement.
“However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place,” the court said.
It further said, “even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.”
The issue of the legality of such techniques to extract information from the accused had received considerable attention since it involves tensions between the desirability of efficient investigation and the preservation of individual liberties.
Compulsory administration of these techniques violated the indivudual rights against self incrimination.
With this judgement, the high profile satyam scamster, B Ramalinga Raju will be amongst others who will escape the tests. The AP police was planing to conduct such tests on him as he was not revealing facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment