The gruesome Shradha Walkar Killing case, in which the Delhi High Court most recently mandated a narco test for Aftab Amin Poonawala, has brought attention to the use of the specialised examination as a cutting-edge interrogation tactic.
The phrase “narco analysis” refers to a diagnostic and psychotherapy procedure that involves the use of psychoactive medicines, especially barbiturates, to generate a state of stupor whereby mental components with potent associated affects emerge, where they can be utilised by the therapist.
A narco test, commonly referred to as a “Truth Serum Test,” is one sort of medical examination carried out in India in attempt to elicit information from a possible criminal or a witness in a criminal case. Giving the individual a substance, usually a barbiturate, to make them unconscious is part of the test protocol. During this time, questions are asked of the subject, and the responses are noted. The purpose of the substance is to reduce the subject’s sense of self-consciousness and to motivate them to reveal the truth.
It’s important to keep in mind that the scientific validity of narcotics tests has been hotly debated, and the results of such tests are not acknowledged as admissible evidence in court. Additionally, it has been argued that utilising drug tests is against people’s rights to privacy and the maintenance of their physical and mental integrity.
The World’s First Narco Test
Early in the 1920s, in the Soviet Union, which was then ruled by the Bolsheviks, a narco test was first used in a criminal inquiry. Scopolamine was a substance that the Soviet secret police, known as the Cheka, used during interrogations of alleged counterrevolutionaries.
Yakov Peters, a high-ranking officer in the Bolshevik administration who was suspected of attempting to assassinate Vladimir Lenin, was one of the most well-known cases involving the use of a narco test in the Soviet Union. Peters reportedly gave details of the conspiracy and implicated many other people after receiving a scopolamine injection and being questioned for a number of hours.
In the infamous “Trial of the Twenty-One,” Peters’ confession was used as proof against him and his accomplices. Peters and several other defendants were found guilty and given death sentences, while other defendants received lengthy jail terms.
Under Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union continued to employ a variety of interrogation techniques, including narco tests, and other totalitarian governments across the world also employed similar techniques.
Brief Overview Of Narco Test In India
The process of the Narco test is giving the subject a sedative medication, such as sodium pentothal or scopolamine, and questioning them while they are unconscious. The theory behind the medicine is that it will lessen the person’s inhibitions and increase their likelihood of disclosing facts that they might otherwise keep to themselves.
Although being in use for many years, narcotics tests have drawn a lot of attention and criticism in India. It has also been claimed that using narcotics tests violates a person’s right to privacy and their ability to maintain their bodily and mental integrity. The tests’ scientific validity is heavily contested, and the results from these tests are not accepted as admissible testimony in court.
Narco Tests are still utilised in India despite these issues, especially by law enforcement authorities conducting high-profile criminal cases. Notably in India, even though it is generally not openly permitted for investigative purposes in most developed and democratic nations.
In India, Narco analysis is steadily becoming a standard practise in investigations, legal proceedings, and laboratories. The judgment of an eleven-judge panel in the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, where it was noted that self-incrimination entails disclosing facts based on intimate knowledge of the person and cannot include only the formal production of documents in court. In the Ram Jawayya Kupar case, it was decided that the executive branch cannot violate a person’s constitutional rights and liberties or, for that matter, any other rights. It was also decided that, in the absence of any laws, any violation of a person’s fundamental rights must be declared unconstitutional.
History Of Narco Test In India
The 1950’s saw the introduction of narcoanalysis in India. In order to obtain information from suspects in high-profile criminal cases, the Indian police first used this tactic. Moreover, narcoanalysis was used in situations requiring national security, such as those involving terrorism and espionage.
Narco Tests were originally thought to be a method that law enforcement may use to gather information for criminal investigations. Nonetheless, the use of drugs testing has come under fire over the years due to questions regarding its reliability as a scientific tool and moral concerns.
In India, law enforcement agencies used narcotics tests frequently in the decades after they were first deployed, especially in high-profile criminal investigations. Yet, as time passed and concerns regarding the validity and reliability of narcotics tests increased, their use started to wane.
Narco Tests are still used nowadays in India, however they are dwindling in number. The results of narcotics testing are not accepted as admissible evidence in court since the scientific validity of these tests is heavily contested. Also, the usage of narcotics tests has come under fire for allegedly infringing a person’s right to privacy as well as their moral, ethical, and physical integrity.
The Abdul Karim Telgi phoney stamp paper scam, the Nithari Killings case in 2007, and the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case involving captured terrorist Ajmal Kasab are the cases where the narco analysis test was most famously applied.
Narco analysis was a tool utilised by Indian investigators in the case of Ajmal Kasab, the sole survivor of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, to acquire information concerning the planning and execution of the assaults. Kasab was put through narcoanalysis tests in which sodium pentothal, a medication designed to weaken inhibitions and increase talkativeness and cooperation, was injected into his body.
Kasab reportedly divulged significant details regarding the attacks’ involvement by the extremist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which has its base in Pakistan, as well as the training and support he received from the organisation, during the narcotics test. He reportedly also knew specifics about the organization’s training facilities in Pakistan and the names of some of his cohorts.
The veracity of narco analysis is hotly contested, and its use as evidence in court is debatable. The information gathered from the narco analysis was not utilised as evidence in the prosecution of Kasab; rather, it was used to support other evidence.
Kasab was ultimately found guilty of participating in the Mumbai bombings, given a capital sentence by Indian courts, and hanged in 2012.The usage of narcotics tests has decreased recently despite being widely employed in the decades that followed due to questions regarding their scientific validity and ethical implications.
Narco Analysis From Constitutional & Legal Stand Points
Narco analysis examinations typically lack legal legitimacy since admissions made by a person who is only partially conscious cannot be used as evidence in court. However, the court has the discretion to award limited admissibility after taking into account the testing environment. According to the petitioners in one such case, it would be against Article 20 (3) of the Constitution for courts to order the prosecution to conduct drug analysis, brain mapping, and lie detector tests against the wishes of the accused. The Indian Constitution’s Article 20 contains the fundamental clause governing criminal prosecution and investigation.
The privilege against self-incrimination is a cornerstone of common law criminal jurisprudence, and it is the subject of this article. No individual accused of any crime shall be required to testify against himself, according to Art. 20(3). Many people believe that subjecting the accused to the test, as has been done by the investigative agencies in India, is a flagrant breach of Art. 20(3), which was found to be binding on the Constitution.
The application of the narcoanalysis test raises a fundamental concern with regard to legal issues as well as human rights. The legality of using this approach as an investigative assistance presents important concerns, such as the invasion of a person’s rights, freedoms, and freedom. In the case of State of Bombay v. Kathikalu, it must be proven that the defendant was forced to make a statement that was likely to implicate him.
So, the privilege against self-incrimination makes it possible to uphold civilised standards and preserve individual privacy when enforcing the law. Furthermore, it contradicts the maxim Nemo sc Accusare, which states that “No one, not even the accused himself, can be compelled to answer any inquiry, which may contribute to prove him guilty of a crime, he has been accused of.” The confession from the accused shall be dismissed by the court if it was obtained under hypnotic influence or any other form of physical or moral coercion. In both the Indian Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the prohibition against being forced to testify against oneself is known as the Right to Silence.
The legislature has protected a citizen’s right against self-incrimination in the CrPC. Every person “is to answer truthfully all inquiries, asked to him by officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to subject that person to a criminal accusation, penalty, or forfeiture,” according to S. 161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Narco analysis has been argued to violate the right to life under Article 21 because it is considered to be a form of mental torture. Again, the legislation prohibiting invasion of personal privacy prohibits the use of brain fingerprinting as evidence in court.
Narco Test Under Indian Evidence Act And Its Admissibility
India has an adversarial legal system, meaning that before accusing a person, the state must first gather proof. In order to gather the essential information and facts for the trial, the police must conduct an investigation.
The Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Constitution in India control the legal foundation for drug tests. The Indian Evidence Act permits the use of narcotics tests as long as they are carried out with the subject’s agreement, as part of a criminal inquiry, and with a court magistrate’s approval. However, the Indian Constitution guarantees some protections and rights for people, including the right to privacy and the ban on harsh, inhuman, and inhumane treatment, which may restrict the use of narcotics tests.
Nonetheless, they are prohibited when carried out against the person’s will or when they offend their constitutional rights and have received negative press for it. Furthermore, the outcomes of these tests are frequently incorrect and may yield fraudulent admissions or data.
The statement obtained during the narco analysis test as received would not constitute evidence as such until it also satisfies some other standards. The Supreme Court ruled in Smt. Selvi & Others v. State of Karnataka that even if the subject consents to the test, there isn’t any conscious control being exercised by the subject over the responses while the test is being administered, so the test results by themselves cannot be admitted in evidence. However, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, any material or information that is subsequently discovered with the aid of a voluntary administered test may be accepted.
The admissibility of the accused’s confession in a criminal case is covered in Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act. According to Section 24 of the Evidence Act of 1872, a confession becomes irrelevant in the criminal proceeding against the accused if it appears to the court that it was gained under duress, threat, or promise from a higher authority. However, the courts in India generally hold that only confessional statements are insufficient to convict the guilty.
Similar to this, Section 29 of the legislation states that any evidence collected through coercion is not accepted under the law. When an accused person is ordered to undergo a narcotic analysis test, it is required, and any information gleaned from the process should be deemed inadmissible.
Controversies And Debates Around Narco Test
Due to the invasiveness of the technique and the possibility of abuse, narcotics tests have been the subject of various ethical debates. There are significant concerns about an individual’s right to privacy, autonomy, and self-determination when medicines are used to obtain information from them. There is controversy around the scientific validity of narcotics tests. There isn’t much scientific evidence to back up the use of narcotics tests as an accurate way to get data from people. The interpretation of the test results and the motive of the person conducting the test can both have an impact on the results of a narcotics test, which are frequently subjective.
The use of narco tests is carefully regulated in some nations, including the United States, and is only permitted under certain conditions, as when significant crimes are being investigated or when there is a threat to national security. Narco tests have been utilised more frequently in criminal investigations in other nations, such India, and there have been occasions where individuals have been subjected to numerous tests over a lengthy period of time.
Narco Tests have drawn criticism for the potential for false confessions or information, as well as for compromising a person’s physical and mental integrity. The use of narcotics tests might also have a chilling effect on people who might be reluctant to assert their rights and safeguards because they risk being exposed to a narcotics test.
Serious ethical, scientific, and human rights issues are raised by narcotics tests. Questions concerning an individual’s right to privacy, autonomy, and self-determination are raised by the use of medicines to extract information from people. It also raises concerns about the possibility of receiving false confessions or information. Apart from the controversy surrounding their validity from a scientific standpoint, narcotics tests have also come under fire for potentially inducing false confessions or information and for breaching the physical and mental integrity of test subjects.
Usage Of Narco Test In Current India
Narcotic tests have been used to elicit details on how crimes were committed, who the culprit was, and other pertinent facts that may help with an investigation.
It’s unclear how long India will conduct drug tests. The courts may further limit the use of Narco Tests in reaction to persistent legal challenges and criticism, even though some law enforcement organisations may still utilise them. The development of substitute techniques for gathering information from people as well as technological advancements may have an impact on the utilisation of narcotics tests.
The usage of narcotics tests in India is questionable, and developments in alternative techniques for gathering information from people may have an impact on their use in the future.
Conclusion
Law is a living process that evolves in line with societal, scientific, ethical, and other changes. As long as they do not violate fundamental legal principles and are beneficial to society, legal changes and advancements should be incorporated into the legal system. In the near future, it will become more apparent to what extent it is acceptable in our judicial system and society.
Many High Court rulings have supported the legitimacy of narco analysis. These rulings constitute a sharp departure from the Supreme Court’s past rulings interpreting Art. 20 (3). The legitimacy stems from the fact that narco analysis is still a relatively new interrogation method in India’s criminal justice system and lacks any regulations or standards. Several High Court rulings have supported the legitimacy of narco analysis. These rulings constitute a sharp departure from the Supreme Court’s past rulings interpreting Art. 20. (3). Because India’s commitment to individual freedoms and a fair criminal justice system are at stake, the Central government must take a firm stance on this issue.
To fully understand the ongoing discussions and legal issues surrounding the use of narcotics tests, it is crucial to comprehend the context and consequences of such tests in India. It’s crucial to comprehend the limitations of narcotics tests as well as any potential alternatives that may help law enforcement agencies in their inquiries.
Author’s Opinion
The use of narcotics tests should be restricted to a narrow range of situations, and the circumstances in which they are administered should be closely regulated. Polygraph testing and other types of evidence should be considered as alternatives to narcotics tests and used where appropriate. To ascertain the scientific validity and moral ramifications of narcotics tests, more investigation is required.