SELVI
& ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Equivalent
Citations: AIR 2010 SC 1974
Author :
K.G Balakrishnan
Bench :
K.G Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, J.M. Panchal
APPELLANTS :SELVI
& ORS
RESPONDENTS
: STATE OF KARNATAKA
DATE OF
JUDGEMENT: 05/05/2010
INTRODUCTION
Selvi v. State of Karnataka is a
landmark judgment that declared narco-analysis, the lie detector test, and
brain-mapping as violative of the right against self-incrimination under
Article 20(3) and the right to life personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. The landmark judgment is a transformative judgment in
criminal law because it contextualized, understood, and articulated the
relationship between the individual (accused) and the State (interrogator). The
Apex Court had two competing philosophies and had to choose one. These
philosophies were the crime-control model, which demonstrates that the sole
goal is to accurately solve the crime, whereas the other model portrays certain
lines that the State cannot cross to detect crime. The Apex Court, in the
instant case, chose the latter one and held that there are certain lines which
the states cannot cross but, the Apex Court has from time to time deviated from
this philosophy, and the best example is the case of Ritesh Sinha v. State of
Uttar Pradesh[1]. The
author in this case comment would analyse the facts, issues, arguments of both
the parties, judgment delivered and finally conclude by drawing analysis as to
whether the judgment embraces the due process model in light of the
constitutional precedent ,and legislative intent.
- FACTS OF THE CASE
In 2004 Selvi and others filed a
criminal appeal, followed by appeals in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. There was a
Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution
wherein objections were raised against the use of neuro-scientific tests,
including narco-analysis, the lie detector test, and brain-mapping without the
accused’s consent. The case dealt with legal questions related to the
involuntary administration of neuro-scientific tests and discussed the various
results that these tests provide, along with the accuracy. Various objections
were raised against involuntary administration tests, which were conducted
without the consent of the accused. The
Respondents contended that these tests are essential for obtaining the relevant
information to arrive at a conclusion that may aid the investigation. It was
even claimed that these tests do not cause any bodily harm to the accused.
The Apex Court, in the present case,
took into consideration the constitutional validity of these involuntary
administered tests by strictly examining Article 20(3), which grants the
accused the right against self-incrimination, and Article 21, which grants the
right to life and personal liberty.
- ISSUES INVOLVED
a. Whether the involuntary
administration of the impugned techniques violates the 'right against
self-incrimination enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution?
b. Whether the results derived from the
impugned techniques amount to 'testimonial compulsion,’ thereby attracting the
bar of Article 20(3)?
c. Whether reasonable restrictions on
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution constitute
involuntary administration of the impugned techniques?
- ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS
- The Petitioners submitted before the Apex Court that
involuntary administration of the impugned techniques is violative of
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, i.e., right against
self-incrimination. They even contended before the Apex Court that Article
21 includes various other rights such as rights against inhuman, cruel
treatment, and even the “substantive due process” is a guarantee inscribed
under Article 21 in the guise of personal liberty.
The Petitioners also raised their
objections against the accused’s right to privacy, including physical and
mental privacy. The use of these impugned techniques would violate the same.
Even the tests were not scientifically proven to be authoritative or
confirmatory. Thus, the evidence obtained from these tests would be redundant.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS
- The respondents argued that using these tests would be
critical in extracting relevant information to help the investigating
agencies conduct their investigation. They contended that these tests do
not cause any bodily harm to the accused. Even the information obtained
from these tests would be used for investigation only to gather evidence
and prevent criminal activity.
The respondent also urged the Apex
Court that these tests are not violative of any fundamental rights and fall
under the purview reasonable restriction enshrined under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution.
- LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE
a. Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution -While dealing with Article 20(3) of
the Indian Constitution, the Apex Court held that compulsory administration of
these impugned tests would amount to “testimonial compulsion.” Since it amounts
to testimonial compulsion, it would violate the rights guaranteed under Article
20(3) of the Indian Constitution. The court also held that in respect to
Article 20(3), the compulsory administration of these tests should meet the
guarantee of ‘substantive due process’ for placing a restraint on Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution, i.e., Right to life and personal liberty. The court
also remarked on the legislative intent of Article 20(3). It stated that the
testimony was given by the accused during his trial be reliable. The statements
made during these tests would not be reliable, thus violating the accused’s
fundamental right to live with dignity and integrity.
b.
Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution - While
dealing with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution the Apex Court held that
though it is not an absolute right, the courts and investigating agencies
cannot arbitrarily exercise their powers. The powers should be used based on
the circumstances involved and should be done fairly and reasonably. In the
instant case, the question of Privacy was also involved. The court held that
though the Criminal Procedure Court and Indian Evidence Act mandates some kind
of interference with the bodily privacy given to the individuals, compelling a
person to impart personal knowledge is not guaranteed.
The court also opined upon the due
process and by referring to Director of Revenue v. Mohammad NissarHolia[2] that
one principle for ensuring fairness in a criminal trial is that the accused
should not be coerced into giving a statement and thus, conducting these
involuntary tests undermines this principle. Thus, these tests do not ensure
due process and cannot be considered as a reasonable restriction under Article
21 of the Indian Constitution.
- JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF : RATIONAL AND INFERENCE
The leading judgment, in this case,
was given by K.G Balakrishnan. It noted that the right against
self-incrimination is one of the fundamental postulates of our criminal
jurisprudence and should be considered an essential WatchGuard in criminal
procedure. The court remarked the legislative intent behind Article 20(3),
i.e., to ensure whether the statement given by the accused during the trial was
reliable and made voluntarily, not under any coercion or undue influence.
Looking at the other side of the coin, conclusions can be drawn that the judges
portrayed the fact that involuntary statements may be false and may, in turn,
mislead the judges. Thus, using such impugned techniques would violate Article
20(3) as it defies the legislative intent and may cause obscuration during the
trials.
While dealing with Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, the Apex Court held that though it is not an absolute
right, the courts and investigating agencies cannot arbitrarily exercise their
powers. The powers should be used based on the circumstances involved and
should be done in a fair and reasonable manner. In the instant case, the
question of Privacy was also involved. The court held that though the Criminal
Procedure Court and Indian Evidence Act mandates some kind of interference with
the bodily privacy given to the individuals, compelling a person to impart
personal knowledge is not guaranteed.
Even it was held that components of
Article 21 i.e., right to privacy, should be read with Article 20(3) to
understand the intersection between the two. When read together, we understand
how and when personal autonomy is essential, and it is the right of the
individual to remain silent. Thus, the court held that tests that violate the
accused’s fundamental rights could not be administered involuntarily on all
these grounds. The Court also held that involuntary administration of these
tests violates substantive due process, which is mandated for restraining one’s
liberty. Even the principle of “ejusdum generis,” i.e., of the same kind cannot
be applied as these tests do not fall under the purview of Section 53 and
Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as these are tests which are
totally different from the ones mentioned under Section 53 and Section 53A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.
- CONCLUSION
This case is considered one of the
landmark cases in relation to Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. It can
be regarded as a trendsetting or transformative judgment as the judiciary
adopted the model, which portrays certain lines that the state cannot cross to
detect crime. However, there is particular criticism, such as why the apex
court applied the principle of “fruits of poisonous trees' ' that may have
acted as an exception in these cases. But, this judgment settled all the
various conflicts related to Nacroanalysis tests. Even the Puttaswamy[3]
judgment where Supreme Court held the right to privacy as a fundamental right
this judgment is apposite shows the correctness of the decision. But, the
deviation can be seen in the case of Ritesh Sinha[4] wherein the court granted
the power to the state to use voice samples and went beyond the line to detect
crime and this judgment has been criticized. The position of the Apex Court in
matters involving such tests as of now stands clear and the police cannot use
these tests.
The relationship that exists between
an accused person and the State is at its most unequal when brought face to
face against the State Machinery of investigation. If the heart of the due
process model is a concern for protecting the rights of individual who are
placed in a special position of vulnerability vis-Ã -vis the State, then the
Court’s exclusion of entire legal regimes from the ambit of Article 20(3),
purely on the basis of formalistic
reasoning, is indefensible. The author contends that the use of such scientific
tests leads to “dilution of
constitutional rights” and also comes into conflict with the right to fair
trial which is guaranteed by the constitution to every accused under Article
21. The same observations were also made by the apex court in the case of
Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L Dani[5].This
judgment as per the author can be considered as an example of a just and
neutral decision.
0 Comments