Delhi High Court bars forcing unwilling accused into narco tests

It matters to citizens as it reaffirms the constitutional right against self-incrimination and the prohibition of involuntary scientific testing in criminal investigations.

Who it concerns: The petitioner (father of the deceased victim), the State NCT of Delhi, the accused persons (Arjun, Jaspal @ Tinku, and Vivek Kumar @ Monu), and the courts involved (Delhi High Court, Additional Sessions Judge, and Trial Court).

What the document says

• The Delhi High Court held that a complainant cannot force an unwilling accused to undergo a Narco Analysis Test.
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, which states that compulsory administration of Narco Analysis, Polygraph, or BEAP tests violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The Court noted that the application for the test was filed by the complainant rather than the Investigating Officer, which is the primary authority responsible for investigation.
• The High Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the petition, finding no infirmity in the orders that refused to mandate the test due to the accused's refusal.
• The Court clarified that while voluntary administration of such tests is permitted with safeguards, the results themselves cannot be admitted as evidence, though information discovered subsequently may be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Also in the document

• The case involves the death of a 21-year-old victim in 2017, with the FIR registered under Sections 365/302/174A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The petitioner argued that the victim's right to a fair trial under Article 21 should override the accused's rights, but the Court prioritized the non-derogable protections of the accused under Articles 20(3) and 21.
• The Court observed that the Trial Court's order recorded the refusal of only two accused (Jaspal and Vivek) but proceeded on the basis that all three surviving accused had refused.
• The State argued that the revision petition was an abuse of process and that the lower courts followed due process.