On June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment in the case of Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar rejecting the Patna High Court’s order that had accepted the recommendation of the investigating officer to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused persons during an investigation of a dowry-related case. The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and PB Varale declared that such a direction was unconstitutional and against settled judicial principles.
The case arose from a FIR registered against the appellant and members of his family on charges of dowry harassment and suspected disappearance of his wife. While others secured bail, the appellant’s plea was denied by the Sessions Court. When he approached the High Court seeking bail, the Court recorded the Sub-Divisional Police Officer’s assurance that a narco-analysis test would be carried out, and posted the matter for a later hearing. The Supreme Court found this deeply flawed.
Recalling its previous ruling in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Court upheld that no person can be forced to submit to narco-analysis, because it violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty of an individual assured under Article 21 of the Constitution. It categorically established that the ambit of a hearing in bail under Section 439 of the CrPC is limited to assessing the nature of allegations, the length of detention, and the likelihood of evidence tampering, and it can never extend to approve intrusive investigative procedures. The Court firmly rejected the idea that constitutional rights can be compromised at the altar of investigative convenience.
The Court also held that even if consent is given for narco-analysis, the test report itself cannot be used directly as evidence. Rather, only such facts as are ascertained by such tests can be admitted, subject to appropriate safeguards and corroboration as under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Referring to the case of Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025), the Court reiterated that the conviction cannot be solely based on such findings in the absence of independent corroborative evidence.
Most importantly, the Court addressed whether an accused has the right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test. It clarified that there is no absolute right. While an accused may request such a test during trial while leading evidence in defence, the trial court must carefully examine whether the consent is genuine, all safeguards are met, and whether it is truly necessary.
The judgment overruled the Rajasthan High Court’s view in Sunil Bhatt v. State, which had treated such tests as a statutory right under Section 233 CrPC. The Supreme Court underscored the fact that narco-analysis can be employed only to a limited extent and cannot override constitutional protection.
The Patna High Court order was set aside. The bail application of the appellant was directed to be re-examined as per law. This judgment reaffirms the fundamental rights of accused persons and is a cautionary message against overstepping constitutional boundaries in the guise of investigation.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/9701/9701_2024_4_1501_62184_Judgement_09-Jun-2025.pdf