Introduction of Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010)

Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court. The Court in this case addressed the constitutionality of scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph (lie detector) tests and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) in criminal investigations. The Court examined whether administering these tests without consent violates fundamental rights, especially the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. On 5th May, 2010 the Supreme Court held that the involuntary administration of such tests violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Download Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010) PDF

Historical Context and Facts of Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010)

The case at hand revolves around the constitutionality of scientific techniques including narcoanalysis, BEAP (Brain Electrical Activation Profile) or ‘brain mapping’ and polygraph tests. The following are the brief facts of the case -

Background and Facts of the Case

In this case Smt. Selvi and others in 2004 filed the first batch of criminal appeals followed by subsequent appeals in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010. On 5th May, 2010 these appeals were collectively taken up by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court as a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

Legal Issue

The main issues in these criminal appeals were regarding the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques used in criminal investigations such as -

• Narcoanalysis
• Polygraph (lie detector) examination
• Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test

The controversy centres around the use of these techniques without the consent of the accused, suspects or witnesses raising concerns about their constitutionality.

Conflict Between Investigation and Individual Rights

The case addressed the tension between the desirability of efficient criminal investigations and the preservation of individual liberties. The judicial task here is not only to evaluate the rival contentions of the parties involved but also to address fundamental questions about the scope and protection of constitutional rights.

Defence of the Techniques

The supporters of scientific techniques defend their use by highlighting their significance in extraction of information that could prevent criminal activities and aid in cases where traditional methods of evidence collection are difficult.

Objections to the Techniques

Several objections have been raised against the involuntary nature of these tests, especially regarding the right against self-incrimination mentioned under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

Issue addressed in Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010)

The main questions which were addressed in this case were - 

• Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates the right against self-incrimination mentioned in Article 20(3) of the Constitution? 
• Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques is a reasonable restriction on ‘personal liberty’ mentioned under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Legal Provisions involved in Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010)

In Selvi vs State of Karnataka Article 20 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India played a significant role. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution

Article 20 deals with the protection in respect of conviction for offences. It states the following -

• Article 20(1): Prohibits ex post facto laws, meaning a person cannot be punished under a law that did not exist at the time of the offence, nor can the punishment be more severe than what was prescribed when the offence was committed. Therefore, an old act cannot be made punishable by a new law. If a particular act was not an offence under the law of the land at the time when the person committed it, he cannot be convicted under a law that declares that act an offence retrospectively.
• Article 20(2): Prevents double jeopardy, ensuring that no person can be tried and punished more than once for the same offence.
• Article 20(3): Protects against self-incrimination and ensures that no person accused of an offence can be compelled to testify against themselves.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 deals with protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 27 of IEA allows information given by an accused in police custody to be admissible in court but only to the extent that it leads to the discovery of a fact. The information even if it amounts to a confession can only be used if it directly relates to the discovery of a fact and not the entire confession or statement itself.

Judgment and Impact of Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010)

The Supreme Court in Selvi case analysed the evolution and certain applications of the impugned techniques including their use within the criminal justice system, relevant foreign jurisprudence, and their limitations. The Court also examined the right against self-incrimination and determined that the compulsory administration of neuroscientific tests amounted to testimonial compulsion. It infringes the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court stated that in order to meet the standard under Article 20(3) such involuntary tests would need to satisfy the requirement of ‘substantive due process’ for imposition of restraints on personal liberty.

Purpose of the Right against Self-Incrimination

The Supreme Court highlighted that the objective of the right against self-incrimination is to ensure the reliability of testimony, as involuntary statements are inaccurate and they also violate the dignity and integrity of a person. The Court also noted that the relationship between the ‘right against self-incrimination’ and ‘right to a fair trial’ was considered in national and international legal frameworks. 

Article 20(3) and Judicial Precedents

In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) highlighted the interrelation of rights, especially the dimensions of personal liberty under Article 21 such as the right to a fair trial and substantive due process.

The Court also restated its decision in M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra (1954) and held that the right against testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) extends beyond the courtroom and is applicable to anyone formally accused, suspects or witnesses in an investigation who might face prosecution.

Privacy and Personal Liberty

The Supreme Court held that evidence laws can interfere with physical privacy; they cannot compel an individual to disclose personal knowledge about a relevant fact. The Court examined how the right against self-incrimination is part of personal liberty under Article 21 and intersects with the right to privacy.

Historical Context of Right to Privacy

The Court traced the history of the right to privacy and referred to cases like M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) which did not explicitly recognize a constitutional right to privacy in India akin to the U.S. Fourth Amendment. However, Justice S. Rao's minority opinion in Kharak Singh highlighted that privacy is an essential component of personal liberty, free from State interference.

The Court also cited other cases on privacy such as Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975), R. Raj Gopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), and People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (1997) and recognized that the right to privacy though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty.

Intersection of Right to Privacy and Article 20(3)

The Court held that the right to privacy interrelates with Article 20(3) and subjecting an individual to involuntary neuroscientific tests infringes both privacy and liberty. The Court also ruled that if an individual is not facing criminal charges such tests would violate the individual’s right to liberty under Article 21.

Directives issued by the Supreme Court

Thus, the Supreme Court directed that no neuroscientific tests could be administered without the consent of the accused which must be obtained before a Judicial Magistrate in the presence of their lawyer. The results of such tests would be treated as statements made to the police and not as confessions. The tests must be conducted by an independent agency with a lawyer present and the entire process must be duly recorded.

Conclusion

In Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010) the Supreme Court bolstered the constitutional safeguards of individual liberty and privacy under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court balanced the necessity of effective criminal investigations with the fundamental rights of individuals by prohibiting the involuntary administration of neuroscientific tests. The Court in its decision confirmed the principles of fairness, dignity and substantive due process and directed that such tests require informed consent and judicial oversight to prevent misuse.