Scribd
Upload
21 views2 pages

Content 4th Issue

In India, scientific investigative methods such as polygraph tests and narco-analysis are increasingly utilized in criminal investigations, raising constitutional concerns regarding individual rights under Articles 19, 20(3), and 21. While these articles protect freedoms, they allow for reasonable restrictions when public safety is at stake, and courts have upheld the use of these methods under judicial scrutiny. The responsible application of these techniques can enhance investigative accuracy while maintaining ethical standards and protecting human dignity.

Uploaded by

snehachezhiyan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views2 pages

Content 4th Issue

In India, scientific investigative methods such as polygraph tests and narco-analysis are increasingly utilized in criminal investigations, raising constitutional concerns regarding individual rights under Articles 19, 20(3), and 21. While these articles protect freedoms, they allow for reasonable restrictions when public safety is at stake, and courts have upheld the use of these methods under judicial scrutiny. The responsible application of these techniques can enhance investigative accuracy while maintaining ethical standards and protecting human dignity.

Uploaded by

snehachezhiyan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

In India, scientific investigative methods like polygraph tests, narco-analysis, and brain

mapping play a growing role in criminal investigations. However, their use raises important
constitutional questions, particularly regarding Articles 19, 20(3), and 21 of the Indian
Constitution. While these articles protect individual rights, they also allow for reasonable
restrictions in certain situations, especially when public safety and justice are involved.

Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19)


Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but Article 19(2) allows for
reasonable restrictions in cases affecting public order, security, or safety. The prosecution
argues that truth detection tests do not infringe on free speech but rather help law
enforcement gather crucial information in serious cases. Since courts regulate these tests and
require judicial approval, they are not used arbitrarily.
For example, in State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, the court upheld that restrictions on free
speech are valid when they serve the public interest. Similarly, scientific tests, when
conducted legally, can aid investigations without violating fundamental rights.

In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras13, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Article 19
rights may be limited in situations that pose a threat to public order6. While individuals have
a right to silence, the respondent contends that this right is not absolute, particularly in
matters affecting national security or public safety. Truth detection tests administered under
judicial scrutiny do not infringe Article 19(1)(a) but rather align with permissible restrictions
to ensure justice.

Protection Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))


Article 20(3) states that no person can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
Critics argue that truth detection tests force individuals to reveal information against their
will. However, the prosecution contends that these tests do not directly extract confessions
but merely help investigators find leads and verify facts. Because the accused does not
verbally admit guilt, the tests do not amount to "testimonial compulsion."

Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)


Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, but it also allows reasonable
restrictions when justified under fair legal procedures. Courts have previously ruled that
personal liberty is not absolute and can be limited for the greater public good.

In Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court ruled that privacy rights can be
restricted when necessary for public welfare. Similarly, in Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration, the court emphasized humane treatment for detainees, stating that
investigations must not involve physical or mental torture. Truth detection tests provide a
modern alternative to coercive interrogation, ensuring that investigations remain humane and
within legal boundaries.
Thus, the prosecution asserts that using these scientific tests under judicial supervision
maintains a balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring effective law
enforcement.

Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interest


The Constitution upholds personal liberties but also recognizes that these rights are not
absolute. Courts have repeatedly upheld that rights can be restricted when required for justice
and public safety.
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that
individual freedoms can be limited when necessary for societal security. This supports the
argument that truth detection tests may be justified in cases where conventional investigative
methods fail, especially in high-profile criminal cases.

Technology and Criminal Law in Modern India


With technological advancements, criminal investigations have evolved significantly.
Scientific investigative methods like polygraphs, narco-analysis, and brain mapping help law
enforcement deal with complex crimes, including cybercrime and organized criminal
activities. These techniques help verify evidence, narrow down suspects, and establish crime
timelines, making investigations more efficient.
However, ethical concerns remain regarding the application of these methods. Courts must
ensure that truth detection tests are used responsibly, with clear guidelines on consent and
judicial supervision. Strict regulations help prevent coercion and uphold constitutional
protections.

Conclusion
The use of scientific investigative techniques represents a progressive shift in the criminal
justice system. While Articles 19, 20(3), and 21 safeguard individual rights, they also permit
reasonable restrictions in the interest of justice and public safety. Judicial oversight ensures
that these tests are conducted ethically and fairly, preventing misuse. By adopting these
modern methods responsibly, law enforcement can improve investigative accuracy, protect
human dignity, and strengthen public trust in the justice system.

You might also like