Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr (2010)

Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr (2010) 

AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1974, 2010 

COURT NAME: THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

JUDGE NAME: HON’BLE JUSTICES J.M. PANCHAL, R.V. RAVEENDRAN, K.G.  BALAKRISHNAN 

BENCH TYPE: THREE-JUDGE BENCH 

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: MAY 05, 2010 

LEYA MAHESH 

21-10-2025 

PARTIES INVOLVED: 

Appellants- Smt. Selvi & Others: The appellants were Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Mr. Manoj Goel,  Mr. Santosh Paul and Mr. Harish Salve, who were subjected to narcoanalysis, polygraph test  and brain electrical activation profile (BEAP) test administratively, without their consent to  undergo such tests. They challenged the constitutional validity of involuntary administration  of those tests on the ground that these tests were in violation of their fundamental rights under  Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.  

Respondents- State of Karnataka: The respondents were Mr. Goolam Essaji Vahanvati,  erstwhile the Attorney General of India, Mr. Anoop G Choudhar assisted further by Mr. T. R.  Andhyarujina on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Mr. Sanjay Hedge on behalf  of the State of Karnataka and Mr. Dushyant Dave who represented the Union of India in favour  of use of the impugned techniques involved in criminal investigations. The State supported the  use of the scientific investigative methods which are all borne out in the judgment, on the  grounds that these methods are supportive of effective investigation and prevention of crime  and also a humane and modern substitute for custodial violence (third degree) methods in  interrogations.1 

FACTS OF THE CASE:  

In Selvi vs. The State of Karnataka of Criminal Appeal No: 1267 of 2004, the Supreme Court  of India dealt with a number of appeals challenging the legality of administering narcoanalysis,  polygraph and BEAP tests to suspects, witnesses and accused persons without their consent.  The petitioners contended that such a procedure was an infringement of the right to personal  liberty and the right to protection against self-incrimination. The State on the other hand  justified this procedure on the grounds that it is a procedure useful for medical examination in  criminal inquiry and also that it is a scientific method contemplated under sections 53, 53A and  54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The petitioners, however contended that these  tests degraded human dignity, physiological integrity and mental privacy. 

ISSUES: 

1. Whether the use of involuntary procedures contradicts Article 20(3)’s ‘right against self incrimination’. 

1.1 Whether the use of the disputed investigative techniques increase the risk of incrimination  against the subject?  

1.2 Whether the use of these approaches constitutes ‘testimonial compulsion’, violating Article  20(3)? 

2. Whether the involuntary use of these procedures is a justifiable constraint on ‘personal  liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution?2

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:  

1. Petitioners asserted that even if the interrogation techniques were less harsh than the usual  third-degree methods used to interrogate suspects, that itself violated the fundamental  rights enshrined within Article 20(3), which guarantees the right to remain silent and avoid  self-incriminating answers. Petitioners also stated that, regardless of how the new methods  were characterised as “scientific” and “modern,” they were still coercive and compelled  an individual to answer questions without their consent. 
2. Respondents, on the other hand, supported the use of the new scientific methods by stating  that they provide a means of obtaining critical evidence that cannot be obtained using more  traditional investigative approaches. Respondents also stated that the scientific methods  can be particularly useful when obtaining evidence using more traditional investigative  techniques is difficult and may assist in preventing similar crimes from occurring in the  future. 
3. Respondents further stated that the use of the new methods would benefit the overall  criminal justice system by improving the investigative process, resulting in a greater  number of successful prosecutions and just acquittals. 
4. Lastly, respondents concluded that since the subjects do not respond to the scientific  methods either verbally or vocally, the use of those methods does not constitute testimonial  compulsion pursuant to Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Respondents also believed that  the results from the scientific methods should not be considered protected from self incrimination because the evidence was obtained using scientific testing and therefore is  not derived from the suspect’s verbal testimony. 

JUDGEMENT:  

1. K.G. Balakrishnan, chief justice of India, rendered the greater part of the ruling in this case.  He explains primarily Article 20(3) in the Constitution relating to self-incrimination.  Although a very important element in this case, no great stress is laid upon the minority  phase of privacy and due process in the renderings. The method of acquiring information  where the source is not benevolent has been studied for a long period of time and in this  connection, methods of interrogation have been investigated. Analyses of the police  interrogatory show that physical violence has frequently been employed instead of slow  and tedious procedures, since they are a more rapid method of obtaining desired ends. In  recent years, there has been a significant increase in the criminology area, leading to a need  for efficient and effective methods to identify fraud.3
2. We can see from the ruling that certain issues, like privacy and fair process, have not  received any attention. The judge accepts and agrees with the arguments made in order to  arrive at a reasonable conclusion, although it would have been easier to comprehend the  rationale if there had been a little more clarification on this privacy issue. The ruling  initially addresses privacy violations where these standards are likely to be broken, but it  eventually turns to the concept of self-incrimination. The rationale is that the meaning of  Article 20(3) has been contested numerous times at different judicial levels, and the privacy  concerns have also been established. The Court held that the involuntary administration of  narcoanalysis, polygraph, and BEAP tests violates Articles 20(3) and 21 and cannot be  conducted without consent. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS:  

Judgment is about criminal investigation tests. There are different types of tests for criminal  investigations, and how they are used by law enforcement. Justice Balakrishnan referenced  prior foreign court decisions that reached a conclusion based on a test. These tests did not  exist in India. The Indian Supreme Court indicated that these tests would not be allowed to  be used in criminal investigations in India because they were equivalent to the definition  of “duress,” which requires some type of bodily harm or a threat of the same. The High  Court of Karnataka equated the physical pain from receiving an injection during a narco analysis test to the level of physical pain necessary to consider a person to have been forced  into doing something. 

The Madras High Court also commented on forceful usage, stating that even if the dosage  of medicine injected during a narcoanalysis is assertive, the individual voluntarily makes  the statement during the test.4 The Supreme Court found the arguments baseless and  labelled the judgment a landmark because the nature of the tests was held to be  unconstitutional. The right against self-incrimination gets violated when such banned tests  are used, as the results cannot be used as evidence if they have been forcefully obtained. 

Article 20 (3) provides for protection from self-incrimination of the person being  investigated. The protections provided in this provision are only applicable when the person  being interrogated has been charged with an offence. This means that even though the  person may have the option to remain silent, he can be required to undergo physical or  mental examinations to determine his level of consciousness, including lie detector tests.  In addition, the right to remain silent is only applicable to the extent that the person has the  ability to make decisions on their own behalf. Therefore, if the person does not have the  capacity to make decisions for themselves, the right to remain silent will not apply. 

If the person is required to undergo a lie detector test, then their right to privacy will also  be violated. Under the provisions of Article 20(3), a person cannot be compelled to submit  to a physical examination or test for the purpose of determining whether he is capable of  making decisions. In addition, any results obtained through the use of a polygraph or other  lie detector devices will not be admissible as evidence of the guilt of the accused. 

Accordingly, although the person may wish to undergo a lie detector test voluntarily, the  results of such tests will not be permitted into evidence against him. In essence, Article  20(3) protects both the right to remain silent and the right to privacy of a person under  investigation. These rights should be protected to ensure that the individual has the right to  equal justice. It is important to note that the rights provided in Article 20(3) must be viewed  in conjunction with the provisions of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and  personal liberty. Therefore, when examining the scope and application of Article 20(3), one  must also consider the provisions of Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. 

CONCLUSION: 

It has often been observed in the Indian legal system that no matter how well based a judgment  is, there is always a tendency to criticise it. The same fate overtakes the case of Selvi & Anr v.  State of Karnataka. This case is a landmark judgment laying down valuable and necessary  safeguards in the matter of procedure, but it has received its share of adverse opinion as well.  Since the time of judicial proclamations are always open to criticism, as this is the only way  by which law progresses, diverse remarks have been uttered against it. The Selvi case shows  how a judge can stay fair while understanding the moral, legal, and scientific issues involved.  The court’s careful approach is still important today, even though new methods like  neurological testing and lie detection have improved since then. Adding these scientific  methods into legal evidence without proper proof or ethical approval from experts is too fast  and not right. Just because science can help or influence an investigation doesn’t mean it should  be used in court unless it’s proven to be accurate and morally correct. Also, it’s very important  not to weaken the judgment’s focus on constitutional rights and personal privacy issues. 

REFERENCE(S):  

1. Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr, AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1974, 2010 (7) 2. Selvi and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2010) SCC OnLine SC 564
2. Bhattacharya, Saikat and Bhattacharya, Saikat, Selvi vs. State of Karnataka: A Critical  Analysis, SSRN, (Jul 10, 2020). 

1 Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr, AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1974, 2010 (7)

2 Selvi and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2010) SCC OnLine SC 564

3 Bhattacharya, Saikat and Bhattacharya, Saikat, Selvi vs. State of Karnataka: A Critical Analysis, SSRN, (Jul 10,  2020). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3629205

4 Crl. R.C. No. 259 of 2006