Supreme Court's judgment on Narco tests: the debate continues

One of our regular and esteemed readers, Shekhar Hattangadi, has written this interesting piece in today's DNA, expressing his disappointment with the judgment on Narco tests. Shekhar is a lawyer and an adjunct professor of medical jurisprudence at Mumbai University. Shekhar and I disagree on the import of Supreme Court's judgment, but readers are welcome to form their own opinion on the issue. My article in Frontline is here.

From the latest Frontline....

*Justice or revenge? Bikramjeet Batra's article on Kasab's sentence and the implications.

*Moment of Truth: My article on the Supreme Court's judgment banning forced Narco tests. Rajeev Dhavan in his Mail Today article offers a different perspective on this, saying the Supreme Court ought not to have allowed testing, even if the accused/suspect voluntarily agrees to it. He is correct - the lines between voluntariness and compulsion are often blurred.

*The Khushboo case: My article on why the defendants in the Khushboo case did not really lose, having succeeded in dragging her to the Court, and silencing her from speaking on the taboo subject again.

*My review article on whether there is an underlying pattern to the rise, sustenance and demise of sub-national movements.

More on Narco-analysis judgment

What to make of Sevli v. State of Karnataka, and the tension between investigative imperatives and a suspect's right against self-incrimination? In this opinion piece in today's The Indian Express, I argue that hopefully, the judgment will be read narrowly. In an earlier blog post, Taunabh has already laid out the case details. One fascinating aspect, which my piece does not explore, is the thin dividing line between a medical test (DNA samples, for instance), where consent is not required, and a "testimony", where it is. The court terms brain-mapping as a testimony, but is it really?

Narco-Analysis Judgment: Selvi v Karnataka

The full text of the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Selvi v State of Karnataka is available here. I have not read the judgment yet, but media reports suggest that the Court has held that involuntary subjection of a person to narco-analysis, polygraph test and brain-mapping violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which provides that 'No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.' (the 'right to silence'). The Court has, apparently, also held that even when a person volunteers to be subject to these tests, their result cannot be admitted as evidence in a court of law.