Selvi V. State of Karnataka (2010)
Definition
Constitutional bench judgment (2010) 7 SCC 263 holding that compelled narco-analysis, polygraph testing, and brain-mapping violate Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Evidence from compelled testing is inadmissible. Even voluntary testing cannot produce testimonial evidence; results may only lead to independently corroborable evidence.
- Citation
- (2010) 7 SCC 263
- Court
- Indian Supreme Court, Constitutional Bench
- Techniques Prohibited
- Narco-analysis, polygraph testing, brain-mapping (BEAP)
- Constitutional Articles
- Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Common questions
What did Selvi v. State of Karnataka rule about narco-analysis and polygraph testing in criminal cases?+
The 2010 judgment held that compelled narco-analysis, polygraph testing, and brain-mapping violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Evidence gathered through compelled testing is inadmissible in court.
Can results from voluntary truth-testing be used as evidence in court?+
No. Even when a person consents to testing, results cannot serve as substantive evidence. However, they may be used as investigative leads pointing authorities toward independently corroborable evidence.
Which constitutional protections guard against compelled testing?+
Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination and Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty. Together they bar the state from using physical or mental compulsion to extract evidence, including through modern forensic techniques.
Related terms
- AI Act Article 5(1)(F)
- The EU AI Act prohibition on AI systems that infer emotions, intentions, or characteristics from biometric data in law-enforcement and related contexts....
- BNS § 22 / IPC § 84
- India's statutory insanity defence: nothing is an offence done by a person who, by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time...
- BSA § 39
- Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (formerly IEA § 45), governing the admissibility of expert opinion in Indian courts. The...
- Concealed Information Test (CIT)
- The Lykken paradigm that detects concealed knowledge by measuring the orienting response to crime-specific items embedded among foils. Theoretically sounder than the...
- Control Question Test (CQT)
- The dominant polygraph examination format, comparing physiological responses to crime-relevant questions against responses to emotionally loaded control questions. Criticised for its false-positive...
- Durham Rule (1954)
- The insanity-defence standard from Durham v. United States (1954) 214 F.2d 862 (DC Circuit): an accused is not responsible if the unlawful...
- False Positive (PDD)
- A truthful person classified as deceptive by the polygraph examination. The rate of false positives in field conditions is non-trivially high and...
- Fitness to Stand Trial
- The capacity to participate meaningfully in criminal proceedings: understanding the nature of the charges, following the evidence, and instructing counsel. In England...
- Frye Standard
- The US legal test for admissibility of scientific evidence, originating from Frye v. United States (1923), which required that a technique be...
- Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales)
- Statute governing capacity for consent to treatment and other decisions (not testamentary capacity). Requires a person to understand, retain, weigh, and communicate...
- M'Naghten Rules (1843)
- The insanity-defence standard from (1843) 8 Eng Rep 718, formulated by the House of Lords in response to the acquittal of Daniel...
- MPC Substantial-Capacity Test
- The insanity-defence standard from the Model Penal Code (ALI, 1962) § 4.01: not responsible if, as a result of mental disease or...
Explained in these topics
- Forensic Psychiatry: Insanity Defence and CapacityConstitutional bench judgment (2010) 7 SCC 263 holding that compelled narco-analysis, polygraph testing, and brain-mapping violate Article 20(3) and Article 21...
- Polygraphy, PDD Methods and the US v. Scheffer Inadmissibility FrameIndian Supreme Court judgment holding that compelled narco-analysis, polygraph, and BEAP violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. Results from consen...