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.