The recent news about protesting wrestlers at Jantar Mantar in Delhi agreeing to undergo narco analysis tests, provided they are supervised by the Supreme Court and broadcast live, has sparked renewed interest in this type of investigation procedure. This article will explore what a narco test involves, how it differs from a polygraph test, the legal ramifications of such tests, and their implications for personal rights.
Understanding Narco Analysis Tests
Narco analysis tests involve the use of a particular drug – sodium pentothal. When injected into the body of an accused individual, it induces a state of hypnosis or sedation, during which the person’s imagination is neutralised. In this condition, the subject is deemed incapable of lying, and it is expected that they would reveal truthful information. Notably, narco analysis tests have been used in India during significant investigations like the 2002 Gujarat riots case and the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case.
About Sodium Pentothal
Sodium pentothal, also known as sodium thiopental, is a quick-acting, short-term anaesthetic typically used in large amounts to sedate patients during surgeries. It is part of the barbiturate class of drugs that work on the central nervous system as depressants. The substance is often referred to as a “truth serum” due to its perceived ability to make subjects less inclined to lie. It was reportedly used by intelligence operatives during the Second World War.
Narco Tests Versus Polygraph Tests
It is essential to differentiate between narco tests and polygraph tests. These two investigation tools strive to uncover the truth but operate on different principles. Polygraph tests rely on the belief that physiological responses change when someone lies. Instead of using drugs, these tests use equipment such as cardio-cuffs or sensitive electrodes to measure physical parameters like blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration, sweat gland activity, and blood flow while questioning the suspect.
Legal Implications of Narco Tests
The use of narco tests raises several legal concerns. In the Selvi vs State of Karnataka & Anr Case 2010, the Supreme Court (SC) asserted that forcibly administering narco tests constituted an intrusion into an individual’s “mental privacy”. The apex court held these tests as violating the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
In another instance— D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal case in 1997— the SC ruled that forcibly performing the polygraph and narco tests would represent cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment within the context of Article 21 or the Right to Life and Liberty.
Other Observations by the Supreme Court
Beyond direct implications, the Supreme Court has shared other observations on these tests. They stated that narco tests are not reliable or conclusive as evidence, considering they are based on assumptions and probabilities. Notably, information or material discovered with voluntarily administered test results could be admitted, per Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee the individual undergoing the test will only reveal the truth, posing a risk of manipulation and fabrication of results for malicious intent. Hence, it was emphasized that narco tests should only be conducted upon receiving consent from the accused, after informing them about their rights and potential consequences. Additionally, the ‘Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test on an Accused’ issued by the National Human Rights Commission in 2000 must be strictly adhered to.