SMT. SELVI & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 05-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, ALTAMAS KABIR, R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 5 S.C.R. 381 
SMT. SELVI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004) 
MAY 5, 200.7 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND 
J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
Section 161 (2), Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 
A 
B 
c 
- Investigation - Examination of accused persons, suspects 
and witnesses -
Use of certain scientific techniques viz. 
narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical 
Activation Profile (BEAP) test - Involuntary administration of 0 
- Held: Violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India -
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 Evidence 
Act -
Guidelines formulated by National Human Rights 
Commission to be strictly adhered to - Similar safeguards 
should be adopted for conducting such tests - Constitution 
of India, 1950, Article 20(3)- Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27, 
Criminal Investigation -
Video recordings of 
narcoadalysis interviews -
Leakage to media by the 
investigation agency - A worrisome practice since public 
distribution of these recordings can expose the subject to 
undue social stigma and specific risks - May even encourage 
vigilantism in addition to media trial. 
.CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Article 20(3) -
Right against self-incrimination -
Polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile 
(BEAP) test - Results obtained from these tests should be 
381 
E 
F 
G 
H 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A treated as 'personal testimony' since they are a means for 
'imparting personal knowledge about relevant facts' - Herice, 
the results obtained through involuntary administration of 
either of the impugned tests viz. narcoanalysis technique, 
polygraph examination and BEAP test comes within the 
B scope of testimonial compulsion thereby attracting the 
protective shield of Article 20(3). 
Article 21 - Personal liberty - Involuntary administration 
of narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and 
BEAP Test - Whether a reasonable restriction or personal 
C liberty - Held: No person should be forcibly subjected to any 
of the abovesaid techniques whether in the conte.xt of 
investigation in criminal cases or otherwise - Doing so would 
amount to unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. 
D 
The legal questions in the batch of criminal appeals 
relate to the involuntary administration of certain scientific 
techniques, 
namely 
narcoanalysis, 
polygraph 
examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile 
. 
. 
(BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation 
E efforts in criminal cases. The involuntary administration 
of the impugned techniques evoked questions about the 
protective scope of the 'right against self-incrimination' 
which finds place in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 
Arguments were advanced invoking the guarantee of 
F 'substantive due process' which is part and parcel of the 
idea of 'personal liberty' protected by Article 21 of the 
Constitution. The main question raised in this regard was 
whether the provisions in the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 that provide for 'medical examination' 
G during the course of investigation can be read 
expansively to include the impugned techniques, even 
though the latter are not explicitly enumerated. Questions 
have also been raised with respect to the professional. 
ethics of medical personnel involved in the administration 
H . of these techniques .. Furthermore, Article 21 has been 
SELVI & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
383 
judicially expanded to include a 'right against cruel, A 
inhuman or degrading treatment', requiring this Court to 
determine whether the involuntary administration of the 
impugned techniques violates this right whose scope 
corresponds with evolving international human rights 
norms. 
B 
Contentions were raised invoking the test subject's 
'right to privacy', both in a physical and mental sense. 
On the basis of the issues involved and contentions 
raised, the Court framed the following questions: 
C 
I. Whether the involuntary administration of the 
impugned techniques violates the 'right against self-
incriminatiofl' enumerated in Article 20(3) of the 
Constitution? 
o 
· 1-A. Whether the investigative use of the impugned 
techniques creates a likelihood of incrimination for the 
subject? 
1-B. Whether the results derived from the impugned 
E

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.