India faces substantial debates about legal viability, along with ethical implications, as well as constitutional issues relating to scientific investigative procedures, including narco- analysis, polygraph examinations, and brain mapping for criminal investigations.
Modern tools that extract truth enjoy widespread promotion, yet their legal acceptability as evidence and alignment with fundamental rights and their ethical basis continue challenging legal authorities. The enactment of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which succeeded the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, offers the chance to evaluate the current legal position of these techniques. Despite existing ambiguities within the BNSS about such evidence, the constitutional protections specified by Articles 20(3) and 21 remain unresolved regarding their legality and potential violations. The judiciary in Selvi v. State of Karnatakai established that conducting tests without consent creates no legal evidence and demonstrates unreliable results. Official departments still use these investigative techniques, although officials frequently confuse compulsory participation with voluntary assistance. This paper analyzes the legal aspects of BNSS, 2023, to determine if narco- analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping testify as court-approved evidence or function as investigative tools. The research bases its findings on court rulings. It reviews different legal systems and examines ethical matters to show that new legislation needs more specific guidelines about procedures, together with alternative investigative methods that respect constitutional principles during criminal investigations. Research findings will serve as a basis for reforming scientific practices to maintain compatibility with India’s human dignity protections while respecting due process requirements.ii
RESEARCH PROBLEM
Scientific tools, together with different techniques, are becoming more prevalent in modern- day processes of investigation and detection of crimes. The three leading disputed investigation methods consist of narco-analysis, along with polygraph tests and brain mapping. Legal acceptance, moral grounds, and constitutional validity of such methods sustain ongoing uncertainty. The 2023 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaces the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) from 1973 to be examined concerning these investigative techniques. As a modernization effort in procedural law, BNSS maintains an uncertain stance toward the disputed investigative techniques. These issues related to evidence valuation and fundamental rights compliance have not been satisfactorily determined
1. Scientific Techniques and Their Limitations
Most investigative agencies in India implement the scientific techniques of narco- analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping to obtain confessions and indicative statements from persons under investigation. National law enforcement agencies employ the narco-analysis procedure by administering sodium pentothal and other drugs for medical sedation to reduce deceptive statements from test subjects. The assessment of one’s truthfulness relies on polygraph measurement of heartbeats, blood pressure changes, and respiratory rate fluctuations. During brain mapping, healthcare professionals use Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) technology to evaluate neurological reactions to stimulation and identify the truth about facts. The scientific and legal communities have locked horns in the most famous cases involving these techniques, but they appear unable to agree whether these procedures are adequate or constitutional. The scientific development of criticism started from debates about the insufficient empirical validity of these testing procedures. APA has declared law enforcement identification methods invalid for court procedures because their outcomes likely include incorrect assessments, making these methods useless for legal proceedings. Narco-analysis appears promising at first, but the statements made during this procedure usually stem from suggestion influences, traumatic memories, or false fantasies instead of facts. Using brain mappings remains problematic because such evaluations depend excessively on stimuli that do not measure culpability.
2. Constitutional and Human Rights Concerns
These techniques interrupt the fundamental constitutional rights protected by the Indian Constitution. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution establishes protection against exposing oneself to witness testimony, yet the practice applies against this right. These tests’ non-consensual and undesired nature turns them into coercion because investigators would gain results through forceful measures that override voluntary defense participation. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the court made explicit remarks. The Supreme Court of Karnataka declared that forced testing against criminal accused subjects both their self-incrimination right and privacy under Article 21.
Psychological research aligns with ethical principles, as these chemical interrogation practices create a moral challenge that distinguishes investigations from coerced methods. Semi-comatose state occurs during narco-analysis, rendering the person unable to grasp the concept of free will. The medical and psychological ethical guidelines require that consent be voluntary and informed before performing any intervention, mainly because these examinations happen under stressful interrogation sessions and are part of a police investigation that stems from questionable consent. The NHRC correctly argues that unregulated use of these procedures becomes unlawful “degrading or inhuman treatment” that violates national constitutional standards and international human rights as defined by the ICCPR.iv
3. Procedural and Evidentiary Pitfalls
According to law enforcement, consent extends beyond marketing lingo to challenge the genuineness of evidence that emerges from the voluntary decisions of defendants. These scientific tests modify test subjects’ mental or physiological condition, which impedes their ability to act voluntarily compared to other standard evidence-gathering techniques like forensic examination and testimonies. According to Dr. S.R. Myneni, constitutional democracies should treat evidence from unwanted states of consciousness as deeply doubtful since it violates personal freedom and autonomy. The methods demonstrate unsuccessful results in many investigations. Multiple occasions have shown that narco- analysis testing, along with polygraph testing, directed investigators toward misleading, incorrect leads. Due to the need for absolute proof of guilt, the criminal justice system finds itself at considerable risk because of this human waiver of rights.
When these investigations give uncertain evidence, while being invasive testing procedures, they pose significant dangers during the judicial process. Scientifically unfounded accounts may lead investigators down the wrong path, wasting time and resources and potentially accusing innocent people. Several methods exist separate from sincere police work, even though they are misused. Law enforcement agencies frequently misuse these methods to avoid efficient evidence collection through traditional police work because the techniques are labour-intensive. The justice system becomes compromised when these practices give law enforcement agencies open avenues to abuse procedural rules for their benefit. Expenditures aimed at enhancing forensic capabilities, along with officer training, are put at risk due to utilizing polygraph machines and drug-induced confessions because both approaches prove ineffective and may lead to severe wrongful outcomes. The critics also point to the absence of a standard protocol and sufficient personnel trained to conduct such tests. The lack of nationwide governing instructions for applying such techniques increases the potential for misuse. Although the NHRC has issued specific guidelines, they are not binding and have not been implemented adequately across states. The results of such tests are often leaked to the media in ways that infringe upon the fundamental presumption of innocence and hamper the accused’s fair trial rights.
Legislative Gaps and the Way Forward under BNSS
Even though numerous issues exist, proponents maintain that when performed voluntarily with appropriate security measures, these methods can serve criminal investigators. These techniques serve the police force when used as lead generators and supporting evidence providers while occasionally revealing new information that otherwise would remain hidden. Every such argument needs evaluation against the fundamental constitutional and ethical guidelines that guide Indian criminal law. A theoretical perspective on jurisprudence shows that Indian law protects individual rights and dignity when criminals escape punishment. In criminal justice, every principle must correspond to the fundamental maxim of protecting the innocent over releasing the guilty, which becomes evident in this scenario. The implementation of narco-analysis and polygraph testing as principles without sustained protections generates an approach contrary to its intended goal. As BNSS begins operation, it provides an ideal chance for lawmakers to develop straightforward legislative standards to specify scientific investigative techniques. The document fails to establish any protocol for admitting results stemming from these techniques. Non-existent legislation surrounding the scientific techniques maintains executive control and preserves existing judicial interpretation approaches before their potential integration into a sophisticated statutory framework. Any future BNSS reform effort should defend constitutional justice by clearly providing procedural safeguards, admissibility standards, and informed consent protocols. The regulation of scientific methods ought to incorporate oversight mechanisms that judges or independent review boards could authorize.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
1. Continuity and Change in BNSS from CrPC
The BNSS, 2023, contains structural changes and many procedural elements from the CrPC, 1973. Section 349 of the BNSS maintains the same function as Section 161 of the CrPC regarding the procedure of police witness examination.v The Act implies that any police use of coercive methods, including narco-analysis and brain mapping, needs to be kept secret from witnesses. Any confession under Section 344 requires presentation to a magistrate to demonstrate the voluntary nature, which matches the provisions of Section 164 CrPC. BNSS maintains that evidence is inadmissible when it is obtained through involuntary methods of evidence collection, such as narco-analysis without consent.vi
2. Absence of Provisions for Psychological and Neuroscientific Methods
Section 304 of BNSS allows doctors to examine those accused of a crime just like CrPC Section 53, yet omits references to psychological or neuroscientific assessments. The laws currently fail to clarify both standards for validation and procedures related to using such methods. The laws exhibit no inclination to accept uses of psychological or neuroscientific tests because these approaches challenge constitutional rights to bodily privacy and autonomy while failing to guarantee safe admissions of evidence.
3 Ambiguity in Defining ‘Scientific Techniques’
There was no clarification about which specific’ scientific techniques’ should be used during investigations and the interpretation of evidence. Since guidelines about these scientific methods are absent, the admissibility and procedural use fall back on courtroom standards that follow the Evidence Act rules.vii
4. Need for Legislative Clarity to Prevent Abuse
These provisions in the BNSS need to be interpreted based on the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 21 to ensure proper procedures that are fair, reasonable, and just. The legislature must enact legislation establishing the rules regarding the availability and use of technical investigative resources. The legal uncertainty facing law enforcement authorities persists until the courts clarify their position, thus resulting in occasional mishaps of procedural violations and improper use of official discretion.viii
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
The Supreme Court made Selvi v. State of Karnataka its principal judgment. The Supreme Court approved of Karnataka State to clarify that forced applications of Narco-Analysis, Polygraph, and Brain Map tests infringed constitutional rights, as stated in Articles 20(3) and 21. Several scientific techniques emerged as factors that breach an individual’s constitutional protections against confession, admission, and personal freedom and mental privacy needs. The Court underlined that these procedures must receive consent and judicial authorization for their performance. It observed:
“The compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the ‘right against self-incrimination’. This is because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses while administering these techniques.” Additionally, the Court warned against the misuse of these tests as coercive tools or fishing expeditions and noted their unreliability due to potential false positives.
2. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)
During this case, the Supreme Court established a significant difference between using testimonial compulsion and requiring physical evidence. The decision allows physical evidence collection, such as fingerprints and handwriting. Still, the Supreme Court declared testimonial response compulsion unconstitutional under Article 20(3), which indicates that narco-analysis-like methods violate this constitutional provision.
3. Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2006)
According to the Kerala High Court decision in Rojo George, Narco-analysis possesses practical applications for crime investigations. Yet, its utilization requires consent, essential protections that respect constitutional rights, and Selvi principles.
4. Dinesh Dalmia v. State (2006)
The Madras High Court understood through this judgment that narco-analysis and polygraph tests could help with investigations. This judgment stated that these techniques support investigations but lack sufficient proof for a conviction, thus acting as supplementary rather than absolute evidence.
5. Law Commission Reports (185th and 200th Reports)
The 185th and 200th Reports of the Law Commission of India show that these scientific techniques have restricted value in court proceedings. The Law Commission clarified that scientific evidence remains admissible only if it relies on voluntariness standards and judicial consent, while needing corroborative evidence that must possess constitutional and procedural protection.
6. Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020)
Although not directly addressing narco-analysis, the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh reaffirmed the exclusionary rule under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that statements made to police during custodial interrogation are inherently unreliable, extending the relevance of voluntariness and judicial scrutiny to all testimonial evidence, including that derived from scientific techniques.
7. Post-BNSS Relevance
Judicial opinions about these techniques have become more pertinent after implementing the BNSS. The latest version of investigation-related rules through BNSS failed to grant clear legal backing to narco-analysis testing, together with polygraph examinations and brain mapping procedures. The interpretation of legal provisions now requires courts to use the Selvi case and other relevant decisions to maintain constitutional requirements and fair judicial procedures.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
- Lawmakers, scientists, and ethics experts must develop a systematic framework to create protocols that protect against coercion, maintain mental integrity, and prove the scientific accuracy of these methods.
- For all uses of such procedures, the Independent Oversight Mechanism must check and verify the proceedings through an independent oversight body. This regulatory body must verify that legal procedures are upheld by confirming voluntary participation and legal representation in criminal investigations.xx
- The development of specialized training should connect with investigators and prosecutors to provide them with fundamental information about scientific test restrictions within legal and ethical boundaries. Most usage errors originate from a lack of understanding instead of deliberate misconduct.
- The Law Commission of India must periodically examine the evolution of scientific methodology to propose needed legal reforms.
- Courts must confirm that consent satisfies the criteria of proper notification alongside voluntary participation without influence from outside forces. Judicial magistrates who approve these tests must maintain complete written explanations and verify the defense rights of arrested suspects.
- The State should allocate funds to acquire advanced non-contrary investigative techniques, including forensic linguistics with behavioral analysis and digital forensic technology that protects constitutional rights.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 demonstrates how India advances criminal justice through technological integration. However, legal uncertainty exists regarding the application of scientific testing solutions, including narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping technology. These promising criminal investigation tools face significant legal challenges to constitutional freedoms under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution about self-incrimination protection, personal liberty, and privacy protection. The landmark judgment of Selvi v. State of Karnataka established that nonconsensual utilization of such methods breaks essential constitutional laws while recognizing the necessity of participant consent and legal government supervision. Law enforcement agencies can misuse BNSS procedures due to a lack of statutory safeguards, even though courts have provided clear decisions.
The presented perspective supports a careful forward-thinking policy by introducing legislative rules to regulate brain-imaging technologies based on constitutional and international human rights requirements. The proposal suggests adding security measures, which include staff training programs and judicial oversight, in addition to scheduled legal evaluation of surveillance systems. Criminal justice operations must achieve their primary goal using methods that uphold the constitutional framework and maintain ethical integrity.