Date:23/01/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/01/23/stories/2008012356001300.htm

National

Vahanvati: narco analysis no violation of privacy

Legal Correspondent

It has particular relevance in terrorist-related cases

New Delhi: Narco analysis is an important tool in crime investigation and the test will in no way violate the privacy of the accused, Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati argued in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

He made this submission before a Bench consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal hearing petitions questioning the methods adopted by the police against the wishes of the accused and seeking the framing of guidelines.

Petitioners’ objection

The petitioners said courts could not direct the prosecution to hold narco analysis, brain mapping and lie detector tests against the will of the accused as it would be violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution (no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself).

Justifying such tests, Mr. Vahanvati said: “Narco analysis is required as a step in investigation. It forms an important basis for further investigation. It may lead to collection of evidence on the basis of what is said during such examination. Material evidence or documents obtained as a result of such examination can always be admissible as evidence.”

Narco analysis “is of particular relevance in the context of terrorist-related cases, conspiracy to commit murder and other serious offences, where the investigating agencies get vital leads for follow-up action.”

These tests were meant to assist the investigating agencies in finding out the truth. “If the statement recorded pursuant to the narco analysis tests by itself is not used against the person, then it cannot be said that he is being compelled to be a witness against himself.”

The Solicitor-General said: “Having regard to the proliferation of crimes against society and against the integrity of the country, it is necessary to keep in mind the interest of society at large and the need for a thorough and proper investigation, as against individual rights whilst ensuring that constitutional rights are not infringed. If these tests are properly considered to be steps in aid of investigation and not for the purpose of obtaining incriminatory statements, there is no constitutional infirmity whatsoever.”

The arguments will continue on Wednesday.