Narco Test

Science and technology have significantly impacted law, particularly in resolving issues like handling scientific evidence, genetic research, and protecting privacy. This intersection, especially in criminal justice, has seen traditional methods evolve with advancements like Brain Mapping, Narco Analysis, and Lie Detector Tests, collectively known as Neuro Law. Narco Analysis involves administering drugs to induce a state where repressed memories surface, but its reliability is debated. However, their use is contentious due to ethical concerns, reliability issues, and legal challenges regarding admissibility in court. Various High Courts have issued orders affirming the validity of narco analysis, a stance at odds with previous Supreme Court rulings. This disparity reflects a legal divergence regarding the admissibility and constitutionality of such tests. Government policy must provide clarity on their use to maintain integrity within the legal system.

Science and technology have greatly enhanced people's lives, particularly through their intersection with law. This intersection has become crucial for resolving significant issues such as handling scientific evidence, genetic research, cloning, and protecting individuals' privacy, especially concerning their nervous systems. Law and science rely on each other, with legal frameworks evolving alongside scientific advancements. This evolution is evident in the judicial system, especially in criminal justice, where traditional crime detection methods have been transformed by new techniques such as Brain Mapping, Narco-Analysis, Hypnosis, P-300, and Polygraph Tests. These advanced tools, collectively known as Neuro Law, have become integral to law enforcement agencies, significantly impacting the administration of criminal justice.

The Narco Analysis Test, originating from the Greek word "narkc" meaning anesthesia or torpor, refers to a diagnostic and psychotherapeutic method. It involves the administration of psychotropic drugs, particularly barbiturates, to induce a state of stupor in which deeply buried mental elements, often accompanied by strong emotions, surface and can be explored by the therapist. Coined by Horselley, Narco Analysis has been used since its first reported application in criminal investigations in 1922. However, its effectiveness has been questioned, leading to skepticism regarding its use. While relatively unheard of in India until recently, Narco Analysis has garnered attention in recent years as a new investigative technique employed by various agencies in the country.

Experts state that during a narco test, a person's inhibitions are diminished by interfering with their nervous system at the molecular level through the controlled administration of hypnotic drugs such as Sodium Pentothal or Sodium Amytal. This induces a sleep-like state, facilitating efforts to extract truthful information about a crime. The individual is then interrogated by investigating agencies in the presence of medical professionals, with all revelations being recorded on both video and audio tapes. The experts' report generated from this procedure serves as evidence collection in legal proceedings. Narco testing is typically conducted in government hospitals following a court order, and the personal consent of the subject is also required. The dosage of the injected substance is tailored to the person's sex, age, health, and physical condition.
Other truth-finding tests commonly used alongside narco analysis include:

Polygraph or Lie Detection Tests:

Polygraph or Lie Detection Tests are examinations based on the assumption that there's an interaction between the mind and body. Various components or sensors of a polygraph machine, attached to the person being interrogated, record physiological responses like blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration, and muscle movements. The test consists of three phases: a pretest interview, chart recording, and diagnosis. Questions are prepared by the examiner, typically a clinical or criminal psychologist, based on relevant case information provided by investigating officers. The subject's reactions are measured, with lying typically accompanied by detectable physiological and behavioral changes. The polygraph test, one of the earliest scientific tests used by interrogators, was refined by Keeler with the addition of a Psycho-galvanometer to record skin resistance.

P-300 or Brain Mapping Tests, developed by neurologist Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell, involve attaching sensors to the subject's head while they're exposed to certain images or sounds. The sensors monitor brain electrical activity, specifically registering P300 waves, which occur only if the subject has a connection with the stimulus. This test doesn't involve direct questioning; instead, it detects brain responses to stimuli associated with the crime. Dr. Farwell's research indicates that the brain generates a MERMER (Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electro Encephalographic Response) when recognizing significant crime-related information. Brain mapping matches stored information in the brain with details from the crime scene. The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) in the United States of America has utilized this technique to convict criminals, as studies suggest innocent individuals wouldn't have certain crime-related information stored in their brains.

1. Ethical Concerns: Critics argue that narco analysis violates an individual's right to privacy and dignity. The process involves the use of drugs to manipulate the subject's consciousness, raising ethical questions about coercion and consent.
2. Reliability of Evidence: There is skepticism regarding the reliability of information obtained through narco analysis. Critics argue that the induced state may lead to false or distorted memories, making the evidence unreliable.
3. Legal Validity: Despite its potential as an investigative tool, the legal validity of evidence obtained through narco analysis remains contentious. Courts often question its admissibility due to concerns about coercion and the accuracy of the information obtained.

1. Physical health risks
   • Side effects : The drugs used in Narco test - Sodium pentothal or sodium amytal can cause possible side effects like nausea, vomiting, dizziness, respiratory problems, and cardiovascular issues.
   • Allergic reaction : Some individuals can also have the mild to severe allergic reactions to the drugs.
2. Mental health risks
   • Stress : The process of Narco test can lead to psychological stress and trauma.
   • Memory alteration : The drugs used in narco test can disturb memory power of the individual. It can potentially lead to false memories or difficulty in distinguishing between reality and imagination.

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution protects the right against self-incrimination, a fundamental principle in common law criminal jurisprudence. This provision ensures that an accused individual is presumed innocent, and it is the prosecution's burden to prove guilt without the accused being compelled to testify against themselves.

The narco analysis test, as an investigative tool, raises concerns regarding its compatibility with Article 20(3) and human rights. Subjecting individuals to this test is viewed by many as a violation of their right against self-incrimination and the principle of Nemo Tenetur se Ipsum Accusare, which rejects confessions derived from coercion or compulsion.

Furthermore, the test raises questions about its admissibility as forensic evidence in court proceedings. While Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for expert opinions on matters of science or art, it does not explicitly address the admissibility of narco analysis or other forms of forensic evidence obtained through similar techniques.

The Right to Silence, enshrined in both the Indian Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves during interrogation. Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifies that individuals are obligated to answer truthfully except when the answers may expose them to criminal charges or penalties.

Overall, the use of narco analysis and similar techniques in investigations presents complex legal and ethical challenges, including the balance between investigative efficacy and individual rights, particularly the right against self-incrimination and the right to silence.

• High Courts:
  • The Bombay High Court, in a significant verdict in the case of Ramchandra Reddy and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, upheld the legality of using P300 or Brain finger-printing, lie-detector tests, and truth serum or narco analysis. The court supported a special court order allowing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct these scientific tests on the accused in the fake stamp paper scam. The verdict deemed evidence procured under the effect of truth serum admissible, distinguishing between statements made before police officers and testimonies made under oath in court. It stated that lie-detector and brain mapping tests did not involve making statements, and statements made under narco analysis were not admissible in trial evidence. The judgment also noted minimal bodily harm in these tests.
  • In a 2006 judgment, Dinesh Dalmia v State, the Madras High Court clarified that subjecting an accused to narco analysis doesn't constitute testimony by compulsion. The court emphasised that while the accused may be taken to the laboratory for such tests against their will, any revelations during these tests are technically voluntary, with the drug in the syringe being the element of compulsion.
• Supreme Court
  • In the 1997 case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court of India declared that the involuntary administration of tests such as narco analysis, lie-detector tests, and truth serum would constitute cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, violating the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
  • In the 2010 case of Selvi vs State of Karnataka & Anr, the Supreme Court ruled that conducting narco analysis, brain mapping, and polygraph tests on the accused, suspects, and witnesses without their consent violated their right against self-incrimination and was unconstitutional. The court further stated that the results of such tests couldn't be admitted as evidence. However, any information or material subsequently discovered through voluntarily undertaken tests could be admitted.
• The Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which governs the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts, does not recognize the results of tests like narco analysis, lie-detector tests, or truth serum as admissible evidence.
• Notably, the narco analysis test was employed in several high-profile cases including the 2002 Gujarat riots, the Abdul Karim Telgi fake stamp paper scam, the Nithari killings case in 2007, and the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case involving captured terrorist Ajmal Kasab.

The legal system is dynamic and should adapt to changes in society, science, and ethics. It should incorporate advancements in science as long as they align with fundamental legal principles and benefit society. While some democratic nations, notably India, still utilize narco analysis, its use has sparked extensive debate. Various High Court rulings have upheld the validity of narco analysis, contradicting earlier Supreme Court interpretations of Article 20(3) protecting against self-incrimination. It's imperative for the central government to establish a clear policy stance on narco analysis to uphold individual freedoms and ensure a fair criminal justice system. This issue reflects India's commitment to upholding human rights and maintaining integrity within its legal framework.