Justice Sanjay Karol’s Bench Clarifies Accused Can Voluntarily Opt for Narco-Analysis Test at Evidence Stage

An order by the Patna High Court that had allowed narco-analysis tests to be performed on all accused individuals in a dowry killing inquiry was overturned by the Supreme Court of India on June 9, 2025, in a decision that is considered to be a watershed in the case of Amlesh Kumar against the State of Bihar.

The ruling of the highest court in the land emphasizes the inviolability of constitutional provisions against self-incrimination and unjustified interference into personal liberty. It reaffirms that involuntary narco-analysis is not permitted, adding that even voluntary testing cannot serve as the only basis for conviction.

According to and this decision has the potential to have an impact on the continuing discussions that are taking place over contemporary methods of investigation and to protect the basic rights that are outlined in Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.

The case was brought about as a result of a First Information Report (FIR) that was filed in August 2022 at the Mahua Police Station in the state of Bihar. The FIR was about claims of regular dowry demands and physical abuse, which ultimately led to the disappearance of the appellant’s wife.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Although the bail requests of the co-accused family members were granted by the High Court, the bail requests of the appellant were denied by the Sessions Judge. This was partially due to the fact that the Sessions Judge believed that the accused had made confessional remarks that implicated him in the disappearance of the woman.

When the appellant contested this judgment, the Patna High Court accepted a proposal made by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer that narco-analysis tests will be undertaken on all accused people and witnesses as part of the inquiry. This submission was made during the bail hearing that took place in November 2023.

The Supreme Court of India came to the conclusion that this acceptance was in direct opposition to the constitutional jurisprudence that had been formed and the practice that had been established regarding bail procedures.

The earlier three-judge decision in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010), which held that the involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain electrical activation profile tests violates Article 20(3) and Article 21 by compelling an individual to be a witness against oneself and infringing on personal liberty and privacy, was the primary source of a significant portion of the Supreme Court’s analysis.

In the case of Selvi, the court had also established protections for voluntary administration, but it was made abundantly clear that the raw findings of such tests cannot be accepted directly as evidence. Subsequently derived derivative information might potentially be acceptable in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

According to the principles that govern bail applications, which focus on the prima facie case, custody period, likelihood of witness tampering, and other such factors rather than detailed investigative processes, the Patna High Court’s willingness to entertain an investigative proposal for narco-analysis at the bail stage was therefore seen as an overreach. This effectively transformed a bail hearing into a “mini trial,” which is contrary to the principles that govern bail applications.

When addressing the question of whether or not voluntary narco-analysis reports could serve as the sole basis for conviction, the Supreme Court referred to its own precedents. These precedents included recent clarifications in Vinobhai v. State of Kerala and Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which emphasized that disclosure statements in isolation, without corroborative evidence, are insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, even if an accused person voluntarily submits to the test when necessary protections are in place, such as informed permission in front of a judicial magistrate, access to legal counsel, and independent medical supervision, the findings of the test cannot be used as the sole basis for a conviction.

According to and any leads or information that arises from voluntary testing must be substantiated by independent evidence before they may be relied upon in court.

A further investigation was conducted by the highest court to determine whether or not an accused person had an unalienable right to request a narco-analysis test. Although the court acknowledged that an accused person has the right to choose whether or not to submit to such a test in order to provide evidence in their defense, it made it clear that this right is not unrestricted.

For a decision to be made on whether or not to allow a voluntary narco-analysis, the totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration. This includes the authenticity of the consent, the existence of safeguards that are outlined in the Selvi principles, and the lack of manipulation or misleading inducements.

It was emphasized that granting an unrestricted right to such suspect techniques would open floodgates to frivolous litigation and undermine constitutional guarantees. The court rejected a contrary view that had been presented by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sunil Bhatt v. State. The Rajasthan High Court had held that narco-analysis was a part of the accused’s right to lead defense evidence.

In its decision, which Justice Sanjay Karol wrote and Justice Prasanna B. Varale concurred with, the Supreme Court emphasized that contemporary investigative methods cannot be sought at the price of fundamental rights that are considered to be of the utmost importance.

The court underlined that the steps taken in the investigation must be in accordance with due process, and that intrusive procedures cannot be carelessly supported. This is especially true in bail hearings, when the court’s function is not to dig into comprehensive evidence appraisal but rather to evaluate aspects that are relevant to bail. By overturning the judgment of the Patna High Court, the Supreme Court reinforced the notion that constitutional rights against self-incrimination and arbitrary state action are of the utmost importance, regardless of the exigencies of the investigation.

The boundaries of voluntary narco-analysis in criminal cases have been brought into clarity by this judgment, according to legal observers. This ruling outlines that although it is permitted in theory under severe safeguards, it is still considered peripheral and has little evidential usefulness in the absence of corroboration.

Additionally, the ruling serves as a warning to lower courts, advising them not to confuse the tasks of the judiciary with those of the investigative instruments that are used during bail hearings. It is anticipated by observers that law enforcement agencies would be need to reassess their expectations with regard to narco-analysis and make investments in conventional and forensic approaches that are constitutionally sound and evidentially solid.

Furthermore, defense attorneys may regard the verdict as a way to reinforce procedural protections and to warn against using questionable shortcuts in the course of criminal investigations.

There is a good chance that this decision will spark more discussion over the appropriate balance between utilizing scientific approaches in the detection of criminal activity and protecting individual rights. The insistence of the Supreme Court on constitutional limitations assures that such technologies assist justice without undermining basic liberties, despite the fact that technology advancements offer promise for solving complicated crimes.

In spite of the fact that the courts and investigative agencies are still processing this verdict, the overarching message that continues to be conveyed is that constitutional rights serve as the foundation of criminal law, directing both creativity and restraint in the quest of truth. Consequently, the judgment that was made regarding Amlesh Kumar serves as a guiding precedent, reiterating that the rule of law and human liberty must take precedence above the pursuit of expedient investigative goals.