As part of a historic decision that was handed down on June 9, 2025, a bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale overturned an order from the High Court that allowed narco-analysis tests to be administered to individuals who were suspected of committing a criminal offense.
Amlesh Kumar, the appellant, contested the High Court of Patna’s decision to accept the promise given by the investigating officer that such tests would be carried out as part of the bail procedures. According to the decision of the Supreme Court, the compulsory administration of the so-called “truth serum” tests is a violation of basic rights and cannot serve as the basis for a conviction or conviction.
Details on the situation
Mr. Kumar and his family were accused of dowry demands, brutality, and the abduction of the appellant’s wife, according to a First Information Report that was filed against them on August 24, 2022. The report was filed under numerous sections of the Indian Penal Code by the appellant.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
The appellant expressed his belief that his wife had gotten off the bus on the way to Ayodhya in order to use the lavatory, and she had never returned. After the sessions court denied his request for bail, Mr. Kumar filed an appeal with the Patna High Court after the decision was made.
In November of 2023, the High Court granted conditional temporary release, but it accepted the officer’s word that narco-analysis tests would be performed on all of the witnesses and accused throughout the proceedings. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a petition with the Supreme Court.
Legal Provisions That Are Relevant
Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India will be the deciding factors in the judgment that the Supreme Court will make. The third paragraph of Article 20 protects persons from being forced to testify against themselves, while Article 21 ensures that individuals have the right to life and may exercise their personal liberty.
A reference is made in the ruling to the precedent that was established in the case of Selvi and Others v. State of Karnataka (2010). In that case, it was determined that forced narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping tests are all violations of these basic rights.
Issues of Fundamental Importance Tackled
There are three primary concerns that the court has noted for consideration:
the question of whether or not the High Court made a mistake when it accepted a request to carry out narco-analysis testing during the bail hearings.
Whether or not a report of a volunteer narco-analysis may be used to establish a conviction on its own.
The question of whether or not an accused person has the right to require such testing.
Analysis of the Judicial System
The Supreme Court has confirmed that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate the protection against self-incrimination that is outlined in Article 20(3) as well as the substantive due process that is outlined in Article 21.
In addition, it was emphasized that such tests cannot be accepted as evidence, and that any information that is derived from them may only be utilized in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act of 1872, provided that it is corroborated.
The Supreme Court, citing Selvi, emphasized that personal liberty and private rights are non-derogable, and that the administration of psychoactive medicines without one’s will violates these protections.
In addition, the court made the observation that bail hearings, which are governed by Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, need an evaluation of the prima facie case, the length of the custody time, and the possibility of witness tampering.
However, these factors do not justify the ordering or acceptance of promises of being compelled to conduct investigations. Using the case of Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat (2019), it expressed its disapproval of the practice of turning a bail hearing into a “mini trial” by relying on scientific testing.
Regarding the second matter, the Court decided that findings from volunteer narco-analysis tests, even where safeguards are included, do not have any validity as independent statements of fact.
In the cases of Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025) and Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), it was established that disclosure statements, in the absence of supporting evidence, are not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt a conviction.
Last but not least, in matters concerning the right to seek narco-analysis, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that it is an entitlement that cannot be defined.
While it is possible for an accused person to freely submit to such tests at the relevant stage of the trial, the courts are required to investigate the whole of the circumstances, establish that the consent is free, and apply precautions. All of the rules that were established by Selvi were reaffirmed by the Court.
These parameters included required judicial monitoring, informed consent in front of a Magistrate, legal counsel, and independent medical supervision.
Under the decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, constitutional safeguards against illegal loss of personal liberty and compulsory self-incrimination have been strengthened.
It makes it quite clear that neither trial courts nor investigative agencies are permitted to use narco-analysis tests as a condition for granting bail or condemning an individual.
As long as rigorous safeguards are in place, voluntary testing will continue to be allowed; however, the findings will only serve as leads in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The function of the court in protecting individual rights against invasive governmental action is reaffirmed by this ruling.
