In a bold decision attacking the convenience of the investigative agencies, the SC has banned the use of ‘truth serum’ without individual’s consent. A good decision as we all know the truth behind the ‘truth serum’
In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court of India has disallowed the use of narco analysis (NA), brain-mapping and polygraph tests on accused, suspects and witnesses without their consent.
Narco tests have come to be used commonly and loosely in India in the past few years. Politicians have been known to taunt each other asking each other to take a narco test. Even a High Court once made a desperate appeal to an official to undergo the test. What made this term common is the frequent use of scientific tests by the police. Most of the high-profile cases are solved by the use of these techniques. The use is vocal in nature too. Whereas there are many methods adopted by the investigative agencies, this bunch of scientific analysis has caught the fancy of the officers and the media alike, and hence a regular use, practically as well as vocally.
Administering of intravenous hypnotic medications, called truth serums, has been questioned for a long time. It was first used in 1922 when Robert House, a Texas scientist used the drug scopolamine on two prisoners. Later, there was widespread open and secretive use of barbiturates or certain other chemical substances to find out truth from the arrested persons during the Second World War. But the practice was challenged by scientists and law experts and many countries started banning the use of these methods during investigations. Today not all democracies allow such usage. The judgment by the Supreme Court has brought India closer to them all, in spirit at least. Though the apex court has not banned the use, it has made consent of the person on whom the narco analysis, brain-mapping or polygraph tests is to be administered, a necessity. It has further stated that even after consent, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence.
There are many grounds on which the tests are opposed. Firstly, the scientists’ community has never come to a consensus regarding reliability of the tests. The chemicals put the person into a state of semi-consciousness and their replies can be either truthful information or certain psychotic manifestations. Leading psychiatric and forensic experts also say that whatever is revealed by the tests, can be found out otherwise too if investigators persist more using traditional methods. Hence, there is nothing sacrosanct about the method as such. But for many investigators, these are short cuts to tedious questioning.
The other major criticism comes from the law experts, based on whose arguments the Supreme Court has actually delivered its judgment. The Law Commission, headed by Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, submitted its report to the government in 2007 against the use of narco-analysis, polygraph and brain fingerprinting as tools of police investigation. The report cited a case in a laboratory in Bangalore, where narco-analyses was being conducted several times on the same subject until a preferred result was obtained. This was evidence that the technique was not based on proven scientific principle.
The Commission also reported that these tests violate the fundamental rights of citizens. The Supreme Court mentions in its 251-page judgment that the tests are in violation of Articles 20 (3) and 21 of the Constitution. Article 20 (3) maintains that “no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. Article 21 guarantees right to privacy. The court maintained that while under the influence of the chemical, the person might give out details of non-penal nature and could face adverse consequences because of that. The Rule of Law cannot allow this infringement over rights and liberty of an individual. It goes against one’s right to a fair trial.
However, it is true that many high profile cases have been solved using these scientific techniques. These include the trial of 26/11 terror suspect Kasab, the unfurling of a larger nexus behind bomb blasts in Malegaon, Nanded etc., and Nithari serial killings. But the investigative and intelligence agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) have come under scanner for their laid-back attitude and dependence on such short-cuts. The alternative to unreliable scientific tests can only be a more efficient intelligence network. The view of most experts is the upholding of the Rule of Law.
