Introduction

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that any forced or involuntary narco test is unconstitutional, thereby striking down the 2025 Patna High Court order in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025), which had permitted the administration of a narco analysis test without the voluntary consent of the accused.

This ruling reinforces India’s long-standing legal position that the right against self-incrimination and the right to personal liberty cannot be violated by compelling an individual to undergo invasive scientific techniques.

Background

• The judgment reiterates the Supreme Court’s earlier stance in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) but expands its reasoning by addressing the renewed attempts by investigative agencies to use narco-analysis in criminal investigations.
•  
• In 2025, the Patna High Court allowed the police to conduct a narco test on Amlesh Kumar, who was accused in a sensitive criminal case. The accused challenged the decision in the Supreme Court.
• A narco test involves the administration of drugs (like sodium pentothal) that reduce inhibitions and place a person in a semi-conscious state where they may respond more freely to questioning.

The SC was asked to examine:

• Whether such a test can be administered without consent
• Whether it violates fundamental rights
• Whether the High Court exceeded constitutional boundaries

Key Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court order, observing that:

1. Forced narco tests violate fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) and 21.
2. Narco analysis cannot be used as a tool to extract evidence involuntarily.
3. Such tests infringe mental privacy and bodily autonomy.
4. No person can be compelled to become a witness against himself, either physically or mentally.
5. Investigation cannot override constitutional protections.

• The Court reaffirmed that consent must be voluntary, informed, and recorded before a judicial magistrate.
• This judgment strengthens India’s commitment to ethical investigation methods and human dignity.

Why Narco Test is Considered Unconstitutional

(a) Violates Article 20(3) – Right Against Self-Incrimination

• A narco test extracts statements without free will.
• This amounts to compelling an accused to give testimony.
• Even if information is not admissible, the process itself is unconstitutional.

(b) Violates Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

• Narco tests involve the forcible administration of psychotropic drugs.
• They interfere with bodily integrity and mental autonomy.
• The procedure is medically risky and ethically controversial.

(c) Violates Mental Privacy and Human Dignity

• Forcing a person into a semi-conscious state intrudes on the right to privacy (held as a fundamental right in Puttaswamy judgment, 2017).
• It undermines the dignity guaranteed under Article 21.

Constitutional Aspects (Exam-Oriented)

Implications of the Judgment

Positive Implications

• Strengthens civil liberties and personal autonomy
• Limits misuse of scientific techniques by police
• Reinforces ethical investigative standards
• Protects rights of accused persons

Concerns Raised

• May slow down investigations
• Police may argue that narco tests are necessary in complex cases
• Debate around balancing individual rights vs. crime detection continues
• However, the Supreme Court clearly prioritizes constitutional morality over investigative convenience.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court's ruling marks a crucial development in safeguarding fundamental rights in India. By declaring involuntary narco tests unconstitutional, the Court upholds the core principles of human dignity, bodily autonomy, and mental privacy.
• This decision not only rectifies the erroneous 2025 Patna High Court order but also reaffirms the judiciary’s role in ensuring that investigation does not become a tool for coercion.

In a democratic constitutional framework, investigation must remain within the boundaries of the Constitution, and individual rights must remain non-negotiable.