In a significant decision safeguarding personal liberty and mental privacy, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has ruled that no individual can be forcibly subjected to narco-analysis, polygraph tests, or any other intrusive scientific investigation techniques. Disposing of a writ petition, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal directed that such diagnostic tests can only be administered with the free, voluntary, and informed consent of the person, recorded before a competent Judicial Magistrate.
The court emphasized that the right against self-incrimination extends to the investigative stage of criminal cases, protecting accused persons, suspects, and witnesses alike from unauthorized forensic diagnostics.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Laxminarayan Patel and Smt. Ardhana Bhagat, approached the High Court seeking protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against coercive police actions. The police had sought to subject them to brain mapping, polygraph, and narco-analysis tests in connection with Crime No. 61/2026 registered at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh. The First Information Report (FIR) had been filed against unknown persons for offences under Sections 103(1) (murder) and 238A (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioners were neither named in the FIR nor was there any incriminating material against them. In fact, an investigation report dated June 16, 2026, submitted by the investigating officer before the Sessions Court during anticipatory bail proceedings, explicitly recorded that no evidence had been found against the petitioners.
Despite this, the petitioners alleged they were continuously summoned to the police station for nearly 18 consecutive days without any statutory notice under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They were detained for prolonged hours, coerced into signing Supurdnamas, and their mobile handsets were confiscated without any formal seizure memo. Ultimately, on June 20, 2026, the police coerced them to travel to Raipur to undergo brain mapping, polygraph, and narco-analysis tests without their consent or any judicial authorization.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Roop Ram Naik, argued that the actions of the police authorities were entirely arbitrary, illegal, mala fide, and in flagrant violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20(3) (right against self-incrimination), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 300A (right to property) of the Constitution of India. He contended that attempting to force the petitioners to undergo highly intrusive scientific tests without their voluntary consent or a judicial order constituted a severe abuse of investigative powers.
Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel, Mr. Soumya Rai, submitted that the writ petition was premature. He argued that the investigation into the crime was at a nascent stage and was being conducted strictly in accordance with the law. The State maintained that the petitioners were only called for questioning because certain facts had surfaced during the investigation, and that mere questioning did not amount to harassment. The State counsel disputed the allegations of illegal detention and forced seizure of mobile phones, claiming they were exaggerated. He further asserted that no final decision had been taken to subject the petitioners to forensic exams, and any such tests would only be conducted following the procedure established by law.
The Court’s Analysis and Reliance on Selvi
The High Court reviewed the record and observed that the investigating officer’s own report explicitly stated that no evidence had been found against the petitioners. The Bench underscored that any investigative step involving narco-analysis or similar forensic examinations must strictly conform to the established legal procedures and statutory safeguards.
To analyze the constitutional boundaries of such testing, the Court relied extensively on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010). The Bench highlighted that the Supreme Court had thoroughly explained how involuntary diagnostic techniques violate constitutional guarantees.
Quoting the apex court, the Bench noted: “…the right against self-incrimination is now viewed as an essential safeguard in criminal procedure. Its underlying rationale broadly corresponds with two objectives-firstly, that of ensuring reliability of the statements made by an accused, and secondly, ensuring that such statements are made voluntarily.”
The Court noted that even non-verbal techniques like the polygraph and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests trigger testimonial compulsion because they rely on the physiological and mental responses of the subject to convey knowledge. The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s finding that: “…the results obtained from tests such as polygraph examination and the BEAP test should also be treated as ‘personal testimony’, since they are a means for ‘imparting personal knowledge about relevant facts’.”
The High Court reiterated that the right to privacy under Article 21 encompasses mental privacy and personal autonomy. Forcing an individual to undergo such tests is an unjustified intrusion into their mental processes, rendering legal counsel ineffective and compromising the right to a fair trial. The Bench highlighted the Supreme Court’s clear directive: “…the compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the ‘right against self-incrimination’.”
And furthermore: “…no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise.”
The Court also emphasized that even if a subject consents to such tests, the results themselves are not admissible as evidence because the subject lacks conscious control over their responses during the state of the test. However, any material or information subsequently discovered with the help of a voluntarily administered test could be admitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
To ensure proper safeguards, the Court referred to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Guidelines published in 2000, which mandate that:
- No lie detector test can be administered without the consent of the accused.
- The subject must be given access to a lawyer to understand the physical, emotional, and legal implications of the test.
- The consent must be recorded formally before a Judicial Magistrate.
- The actual recording must be performed by an independent agency (such as a hospital) in the presence of a lawyer.
The Decision
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the ongoing investigation, the High Court directed that the investigating agency shall not compel or coerce the petitioners to undergo narco-analysis, polygraph examination, BEAP tests, or any other similar scientific techniques.
The Bench ordered that if such tests are proposed, they can only be conducted with the voluntary, informed, and unequivocal consent of the petitioners, strictly adhering to the safeguards laid down in the Selvi case and the NHRC Guidelines. The Court mandated that any such consent must be recorded before a competent Judicial Magistrate to ensure it is entirely free and voluntary. With these directions, the writ petition was formally disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Laxminarayan Patel and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others
Case No.: WPCR No. 340 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha & Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Date: June 29, 2026
