Selvi & Ors. vs State Of Karnataka & Anr.
on 5 May, 2010
Author: K B I.
Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, J.M. Panchal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004
Smt. Selvi & Ors. ... Appellants Versus
State of Karnataka ...Respondent With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 54 of 2005, 55 of 2005, 56-57 of 2005, 58-59 of 2005, 1199 of 2006, 1471 of 2007, and
Nos.987 & 990 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10 of 2006 and 6711 of 2007]
JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.I.
Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10 of 2006 and 6711 of 2007.
1. The legal questions in this batch of criminal appeals relate to the involuntary administration of certain
scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile
(BEAP) test for the 1
purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases. This issue has received considerable attention
since it involves tensions between the desirability of efficient investigation and the preservation of individual
liberties. Ordinarily the judicial task is that of evaluating the rival contentions in order to arrive at a sound
conclusion. However, the present case is not an ordinary dispute between private parties. It raises pertinent
questions about the meaning and scope of fundamental rights which are available to all citizens. Therefore, we
must examine the implications of permitting the use of the impugned techniques in a variety of settings.
2. Objections have been raised in respect of instances where individuals who are the accused, suspects or
witnesses in an investigation have been subjected to these tests without their consent. Such measures have
been defended by citing the importance of extracting information which could help the investigating agencies
to prevent criminal activities in the future as well as in circumstances where it is difficult to gather evidence
through ordinary means. In some of the 2
impugned judgments, reliance has been placed on certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to refer back to the responsibilities placed on citizens to fully co-operate
with investigation agencies. It has also been urged that administering these techniques does not cause any
bodily harm and that the extracted information will be used only for strengthening investigation efforts and
will not be admitted as evidence during the trial stage. The assertion is that improvements in fact-finding
during the investigation stage will consequently help to increase the rate of prosecution as well as the rate of
acquittal. Yet another line of reasoning is that these scientific techniques are a softer alternative to the
regrettable and allegedly widespread use of `third degree methods' by investigators.
FOR MORE CLICK Selvi & Ors. vs State Of Karnataka & Anr.
