Relevancy of Narco Analysis Test under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India

Abstract

The Narco Analysis Test, often viewed as a scientific tool for criminal investigation, raises significant constitutional and ethical concerns when examined through the lens of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection against self-incrimination. While the test aims to assist law enforcement agencies in obtaining hidden truths from suspects or witnesses, it simultaneously challenges the fundamental right of an individual to remain silent. The involuntary nature of administering such a test question whether the evidence obtained can truly be considered voluntary and thus admissible in a court of law. This tension between the interests of justice and individual liberty forms the central issue in assessing the constitutional validity of Narco Analysis in India. The debate surrounding the relevancy of the Narco Analysis Test reflects a broader conflict between state power and personal freedom in a democratic society. On one hand, investigative agencies argue that scientific techniques such as narco analysis aid in solving complex cases and serve the larger public interest. On the other hand, legal scholars and human rights advocates emphasise that any form of compelled testimony, even though scientific means, violates the spirit of constitutional protection under Article 20(3). Therefore, this article critically examines the legal, ethical, and judicial perspectives on the Narco Analysis Test, exploring whether its use can be harmonised with constitutional safeguards or if it stands as a violation of fundamental human rights.