Supreme Court Holds High Court Erred in Ordering Narco-Analysis of All Accused; Clarifies Limits on Voluntary Tests

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale heard the appeal arising from an interim order of the Patna High Court which accepted the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer’s assurance that narco‑analysis tests would be conducted on all accused in a disappearance case. The challenge, advanced by the appellant, contested the High Court’s acceptance of the investigative submission and raised questions about the permissibility and evidentiary value of narco‑analysis in light of this Court’s decision in Selvi v. State of Karnataka.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned High Court order. It held that the High Court erred in accepting a police undertaking to carry out narco‑analysis of all accused persons while adjudicating a bail application, observing that involuntary administration of such techniques was impermissible as per Selvi and would violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that “no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question” and emphasised that reports of voluntary tests could not form the sole basis for conviction; any information derived thereafter could only be admitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and required supporting material. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to add, that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in a trial. However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test, for upon receipt of such an application the concerned Court, must consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the matter, such as free consent, appropriate safeguards etc., authorizing a person to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test. We deem it appropriate to reproduce and reiterate the guidelines issued in Selvi (Supra) in this regard as follows :" The Court reiterated the Selvi safeguards for voluntary tests, including recording consent before a Magistrate, access to counsel, judicial scrutiny and independent medical recording.

Background The dispute arose from FIR No. 545/2022 registered at P.S. Mahua alleging dowry demands, assault and the disappearance of the complainant’s sister, the appellant’s wife, who went missing after alighting from a bus in August 2022. The appellant contended that his wife left the bus and did not return; the missing person has not been located. Co‑accused had given confessional statements implicating themselves and stating they had thrown the missing woman into the river Saryu. The Sessions Judge refused regular bail on 1 August 2023. The appellant approached the Patna High Court, which during interim proceedings accepted the investigating officer’s assurance that narco‑analysis of all accused and other witnesses would be undertaken and listed the matter for further hearing.

The appellant challenged that interim acceptance before this Court. After hearing parties and appointing Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, the Supreme Court framed issues including (i) whether the High Court could accept the police submission to conduct narco‑analysis of all accused, (ii) whether a voluntary narco‑analysis report could form the sole basis of conviction, and (iii) whether an accused enjoyed an indefeasible right to claim such a test. The Court recalled Selvi’s exposition that involuntary administration of narco‑analysis and similar techniques violated Articles 20(3) and 21, that results of involuntary tests were not admissible as material evidence, and that voluntary tests required strict safeguards and their results could not be directly admitted. Reliance was also placed on this Court’s criticism of High Courts converting bail hearings into mini‑trials by ordering such tests (citing Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana). The Court found no justification for the High Court’s acceptance of the investigative undertaking, set aside the impugned order dated 9 November 2023, and allowed the appeal. The bail application, if pending, was directed to be decided in accordance with law.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 810 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5392 of 2024) Case Title: Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Learned counsel for the Appellant (name not specified in the order) For the Respondent(s): Additional Standing Counsel for the State (name not specified in the order) Amicus Curiae: Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Advocate