No Individual Should Be Forcibly Subjected to Narco-Analysis”: Supreme Court Reaffirms Constitutional Safeguards in Amlesh Kumar Case

Introduction

Case Analysis: Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,

Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5392 of 2024)

Decided on: 9 June 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Appellant’s Counsel: Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

Respondent’s Counsel: Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar

Acts & Sections Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498A, 504, 506, 34

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 439

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 27

• Constitution of India: Articles 20(3), 21Cited Judgements:

• Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263

• Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 522

• Vinobhai v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC Online SC 178

• Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984

• Rajesh Talwar v. CBI, 2013 SCC OnLine All 5533

• Sunil Bhatt v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1443

  
  

Analysing the Judgment: A Constitutional Reaffirmation on Narco-Analysis

The recent judgment in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 9 June 2025, revisits the deeply contested issue of narco-analysis and its constitutional validity, particularly in the context of pre-trial criminal proceedings. This decision not only sets aside the High Court’s interim directions but also crystallizes the legal understanding surrounding the use of invasive investigative tools vis-à-vis individual rights under Articles 20(3) and 21.

Factual Background

The case arises from an FIR lodged on 24 August 2022 at P.S. Mahua, Bihar, alleging offences under various IPC provisions, including abduction and dowry harassment. The complainant’s sister, married to the appellant on 11 December 2020, went missing under suspicious circumstances.

The High Court of Judicature at Patna, while considering a bail application, noted the investigating officer's assurance that narco-analysis tests would be conducted on all accused and relevant witnesses. The Court accepted this proposition and listed the matter for further hearing.

The appellant challenged this interim order on the grounds that it contravened the established legal position as laid down in Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka.

Key Constitutional and Legal Questions

The Hon’ble Court framed three pivotal questions:

1. Whether the High Court erred in accepting the submission to conduct narco-analysis tests during bail adjudication?

2. Can a voluntary narco-analysis report serve as the sole basis for conviction?

3. Does an accused possess an indefeasible right to undergo narco-analysis voluntarily?

   
   

Judicial Reasoning and Observations

1. High Court’s Overreach during Bail Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that the High Court, while hearing an application under Section 439 CrPC, ventured into impermissible terrain by accepting investigative propositions such as narco-analysis.

“It is settled law that while entertaining an application for grant of bail, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations against the accused; period of custody undergone; nature of evidence and the crime in question; likelihood of influencing witnesses and other such relevant grounds.”

Referring to Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana, the Hon’ble Bench reminded that ordering narco-analysis at the bail stage amounts to converting bail adjudication into a “mini-trial”, which is not permissible.

2. Voluntary Narco-Analysis and Evidentiary Value

The Court unequivocally reiterated that even when consented to voluntarily, narco-analysis does not enjoy the status of direct admissible evidence. The only permissible evidentiary use stems from Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act—i.e., discovery of facts based on such statements.

Quoting Vinobhai v. State of Kerala, the Court noted:

“Disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, are not sufficient on their own to secure conviction.”

Therefore, the Court ruled that voluntary narco-analysis cannot be the sole basis of conviction.

3. Is There a Right to Undergo Narco-Analysis Voluntarily?

This issue involved divergent views among High Courts. While some allowed it under the right to defence evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that there is no indefeasible right to such a test.

The Court relied heavily on Selvi, observing:

“It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature…”

Instead, the trial court must evaluate the totality of circumstances, including consent, mental state, legal representation, and safeguards before allowing a voluntary narco-analysis.

Reiteration of Procedural Safeguards

The judgment revisits the guidelines prescribed in Selvi and adopted from the NHRC, which remain binding:

• Consent must be informed and recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.

• The accused must be represented by a lawyer.

• The procedure must be conducted by an independent agency in the presence of legal counsel.

• Test results are not to be treated as confessions.

These safeguard the fundamental rights under Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).

Concluding Remarks

The judgment restores doctrinal clarity and sends a strong message to all levels of judiciary and law enforcement:

“Under no circumstances is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law.”

It reaffirms the importance of substantive due process in criminal investigation and trial, reminding that technological tools must not be wielded at the expense of constitutional freedoms.

Further, the judgment implicitly critiques judicial overreach in criminal proceedings and discourages courts from embracing investigative suggestions that may appear “modern” or “efficient” but are procedurally violative.

Final Orders

• The impugned interim order of the Patna High Court dated 9 November 2023 was set aside.

• The appellant’s bail application is to be reconsidered in accordance with law.

• The appeal was allowed.

  
  

Significance for Legal Professionals

For Indian legal practitioners, this decision offers:

• A reaffirmation of Selvi’s constitutional principles.

• A strict boundary on judicial conduct during bail adjudications.

• Clarification that investigative agencies cannot bypass fundamental rights under the guise of modern techniques.

This case is a compelling precedent reinforcing constitutional rights, evidentiary thresholds, and the cautious use of scientific tools in the administration of criminal justice.