Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has held that no individual can be forcibly subjected to narco-analysis, declaring such actions a violation of constitutional protections. In its judgment dated 9 June 2025, the Court annulled an order issued by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which had accepted the investigating officer's proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused persons and witnesses involved in an ongoing criminal investigation. The Supreme Court observed that this directive by the High Court directly contravened the constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21, as laid down in the landmark case of Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka.

The apex court stated that the impugned order could not be sustained in law and set it aside. It further clarified that voluntary narco-analysis tests, if undertaken, must be subject to judicial scrutiny and rigorous safeguards, and their results alone cannot constitute admissible evidence unless supported by subsequent discoveries permissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court directed that the appellant's pending bail application be decided afresh according to law.

Also Read: Supreme Court Closes Contempt Proceedings With Strict Directives | Orders Afforestation, Environmental Fee On DDA For Delhi Ridge Tree Felling | Warns Against Recurrence

The matter originated from an FIR registered on 24 August 2022 at Police Station Mahua, invoking Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant alleged that her sister, married to the appellant on 11 December 2020, was subjected to dowry demands and physical abuse by the appellant and his family. On 22 August 2022, the complainant received a call from the appellant claiming that her sister had run away. Despite extensive efforts, her sister remained missing, leading to suspicion of foul play.

The appellant contended that on 21 August 2022, while they were traveling to Ayodhya, his wife alighted from the bus at Baabali Chawk for a nature call and never returned. He subsequently filed a missing person complaint at Police Station Jahangir Ganj, documented as GD No. 038, on 28 August 2022.

Investigations remained inconclusive, with the missing person untraced to date. The appellant’s father, mother, and brothers were granted bail by the Patna High Court. However, the appellant’s application for regular bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in B.P. No.1141 of 2023, on 1 August 2023, referencing allegations in the FIR and confessional statements by co-accused persons who purportedly claimed that the missing woman was thrown into the river Saryu on the intervening night of 21 and 22 August 2022.

Subsequently, the appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Patna seeking regular bail under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023. On 9 November 2023, the High Court issued an interim order accepting the submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahua, to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused persons and witnesses if necessary. The matter was then posted for further hearing on 12 July 2024, directing that an investigation report be submitted on the next date.

The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that the directive to subject him and others to narco-analysis violated constitutional protections, particularly the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court, after partially hearing the matter, appointed Senior Advocate Mr. Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae to assist in the adjudication given the constitutional implications.

The Supreme Court addressed three primary issues in the appeal:

(i) Whether the High Court could accept the investigating officer’s submission to conduct narco-analysis on accused persons;

(ii) Whether the results of a voluntary narco-analysis test can form the sole basis of conviction; and

(iii) Whether an accused has an indefeasible right to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test.

The Court elaborated that narco-analysis involves administering psychoactive substances under controlled conditions to suppress reasoning. “Conducting such tests on persons accused of committing a crime raises serious questions, vis-à-vis, the constitutional protection granted from compulsion to become a witness against oneself under Article 20(3).” It acknowledged that the constitutionality of such tests had already been addressed in Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, where the Court categorically held that involuntary administration of such tests is impermissible.

It recorded: “Under no circumstances, is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law. Consequently, a report of such involuntary test or information that is discovered subsequently is also not per se admissible as evidence in criminal or other proceedings.”

On the High Court’s acceptance of the investigating officer’s submission during a bail hearing, the Court remarked: “We fail to understand how such an endeavour was accepted by the High Court when adjudicating an application for regular bail… It does not involve entering into a roving enquiry or accepting the use of involuntary investigative techniques.”

Citing Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated: “By ordering the abovementioned tests and venturing into the reports of the same with meticulous details, the High Court has converted the adjudication of a bail matter to that of a mini trial indeed. This assumption of function of a trial court by the High Court is deprecated.”

Regarding whether voluntary narco-analysis can solely establish guilt, the Court cited Vinobhai v. State of Kerala and Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., stating: “Although disclosure statements hold significance… they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”

As to whether an accused has an absolute right to request such a test, the Court disagreed with the Rajasthan High Court’s judgement in Sunil Bhatt v. State, clarifying: “It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature.” The Bench held that voluntariness alone does not guarantee admissibility or legality unless judicial safeguards are met.

Referring once again to Selvi, the Court reproduced: “Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence… any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntarily administered test results can be admitted in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act.”

The Supreme Court concluded with a clear set of directions derived directly from the judgment: “The High Court has erred in accepting a submission to carry out a narco-analysis test of all accused persons by the Investigating Officer.” Consequently, it held the impugned order dated 9 November 2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023 as unsustainable and is hereby set aside.

The Court determined: “The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage.” However, it clarified that this is not an absolute right. Rather, “upon receipt of such an application the concerned Court must consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the matter, such as free consent, appropriate safeguards etc.”

Also Read: Petitioner Illegally And Arbitrarily Rejected For Port Wine Stain | J&K High Court Quashes Medical Ineligibility And Orders Fresh CAPF Examination

The Bench stated the guidelines laid down in Selvi, directing that:

“No lie detector tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused… The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate… The actual recording of the lie detector test shall be done by an independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence of a lawyer.”

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s bail application, if pending, be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mrs. Manju Singh, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel; Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate-on-Record

Amicus Curiae: Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Manan Garg, Advocate

Case Title: Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 810

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5392 of 2024)

Full Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prasanna B. Varale

[Read/Download order]