Introduction:

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that addressed the constitutionality and legality of using certain scientific techniques, such as narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and brain electrical oscillation profiling (BEOS), in criminal investigations. The case significantly clarified the scope and application of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination.

Facts:

• Several criminal cases were consolidated before the Supreme Court, raising the common issue of whether the involuntary administration of techniques like narcoanalysis, polygraph tests, and BEOS violated the fundamental rights of the accused.

• The petitioners argued that these techniques constituted testimonial compulsion, infringing upon their right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and their right to personal liberty under Article 21.

• The State contended that these techniques were essential investigative tools that aided in uncovering the truth, especially in complex criminal cases. They argued that the information obtained was not testimonial in nature and, therefore, did not violate Article 20(3).

• The lower courts had, in some cases, allowed the use of these techniques, while in others, they had raised concerns about their legality and reliability.

Analysis:

• The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive examination of the right against self-incrimination and its historical and jurisprudential foundations.

• The Court clarified that Article 20(3) extends beyond oral or written statements to include any form of communication that reveals information within the accused's personal knowledge.

• The Court recognized the concept of "mental privacy," holding that the involuntary administration of techniques like narcoanalysis violates an individual's right to mental privacy and constitutes testimonial compulsion. These tests, the court argued, are intrusive, and force the accused to share information that they may not otherwise share.

• The Court emphasized that any consent to undergo such tests must be truly voluntary and informed, not coerced or manipulated.

• The Court held that statements made during narcoanalysis or polygraph tests are not reliable as primary evidence due to their involuntary nature. They can only be used for corroborative purposes, with the accused's consent.

• The Court underscored the importance of upholding human dignity and personal liberty, stating that coercive investigative techniques violate these fundamental rights. The court also expressed concerns about the scientific reliability of these tests.

• The court also reinforced the idea, that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and the accused cannot be forced to provide evidence against themselves.

Conclusion:

• Selvi v. State of Karnataka is a landmark judgment that significantly strengthened the right against self-incrimination in India.

• It established that the right extends beyond physical compulsion to include mental intrusion, safeguarding an individual's mental privacy.

• The judgment clarified the limitations on the use of scientific techniques in criminal investigations, emphasizing the importance of informed consent and voluntary participation.

• The case highlighted the need to balance the state's interest in effective investigation with the protection of individual liberties, ensuring that the pursuit of justice does not come at the expense of fundamental rights.

• The ruling reinforced the importance of human dignity, and the need for the indian justice system to be in compliance with international standards of human rights.