Introduction:

The Delhi High Court has held that a complainant cannot compel an accused to undergo a Narco Analysis Test when the accused has expressly refused to give consent. The Court emphasised that consent for undergoing such a test is a personal and non-derogable safeguard belonging to the individual who is to be subjected to the test and cannot be overridden at the instance of a third party, even where the complainant seeks the test in the interest of uncovering the truth.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by Pappu Singh, the father of a woman who was allegedly murdered in 2017. The petitioner had challenged orders passed by the Trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge refusing his request for conducting Narco Analysis Tests on the accused persons in the case.

The proceedings arose from the disappearance and subsequent alleged murder of the petitioner’s daughter, Yogesh Kumari. According to the case background, Yogesh Kumari went missing on November 16, 2017, when she had stepped out of her residence to purchase vegetables. Following suspicion against persons residing as tenants in the same locality, a criminal case was registered. The FIR invoked Sections 365, 302, 174A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The investigation ultimately led to criminal proceedings against the accused persons. However, the petitioner remained dissatisfied with the manner in which the matter had progressed and sought the use of scientific investigative techniques, particularly Narco Analysis, to obtain information concerning the alleged murder.

The petitioner approached the Trial Court seeking directions requiring the accused persons to undergo Narco Analysis Tests. Two of the accused expressly declined to undergo the test. The Trial Court, taking note of their refusal, rejected the complainant’s application on the ground that a Narco Analysis Test could not be forcibly imposed upon an unwilling accused.

The petitioner thereafter challenged the decision before the Sessions Court. He contended that the investigation had remained unresolved for several years and that scientific methods were necessary to uncover the truth, particularly because the alleged murder was said to have occurred inside a room where there were virtually no eyewitnesses. The revision petition was, however, dismissed.

The matter then reached the Delhi High Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the unusual circumstances of the case justified the use of Narco Analysis and that the Court should permit the test despite the accused persons’ refusal.

The High Court considered the request in the context of the constitutional safeguards governing involuntary scientific investigative techniques. The Court referred particularly to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., decided in 2010, which held that individuals cannot be forcibly subjected to Narco Analysis, polygraph examination or Brain Electrical Activation Profile tests.

The Court also considered the subsequent reiteration of these principles in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, and examined whether the complainant could claim any independent entitlement to compel the accused to undergo a test which the accused himself had expressly refused.

The High Court ultimately answered the question in the negative. It held that the safeguard of consent recognised in Selvi is personal to the subject of the proposed test. It cannot be exercised, waived or overridden on behalf of the accused by a complainant or any other third party.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged the circumstances of the case and the anguish of the deceased woman’s father. It recognised that the interests of the victim and the victim’s family are an important component of the criminal justice process. However, the Court held that the legitimate search for truth cannot result in the removal of constitutional and legal safeguards protecting the accused.

The Court consequently declined to interfere with the concurrent orders refusing to compel the accused persons to undergo Narco Analysis. Since the chargesheet had already been filed, however, the High Court clarified that the competent Court could examine all aspects of the matter and, if the petitioner desired, could consider a request for further investigation or monitoring of the investigation in accordance with law.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, Pappu Singh, approached the High Court primarily on the ground that the criminal investigation into the alleged murder of his daughter required greater use of scientific methods. His grievance was rooted in the fact that Yogesh Kumari had allegedly gone missing in November 2017 and was subsequently suspected to have been murdered, while the circumstances surrounding the incident remained contested.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged murder had taken place inside a room and that there were virtually no eyewitnesses to the incident. In such circumstances, it was argued, conventional investigative methods might not be sufficient to establish the complete chain of events.

The petitioner therefore sought the use of Narco Analysis as an investigative technique which, according to his submission, could assist the investigating agency and the Court in discovering facts that may otherwise remain concealed. The passage of several years since the alleged incident was relied upon as an additional reason for seeking scientific assistance.

The petitioner argued that the object of the criminal investigation was to discover the truth and ensure that the perpetrators of the alleged offence were brought to justice. In his submission, the refusal of the accused persons to undergo the test should not automatically prevent the Court from directing such an examination when the request was being made by the victim’s father.

The petitioner’s case was also founded upon the broader principle that a fair trial encompasses not only the rights of an accused but also the legitimate interests of the victim. Counsel sought to place the request within the framework of the victim’s right to a fair investigation and the State’s obligation to properly investigate allegations of serious offences.

The petitioner challenged both the Trial Court’s refusal to order the Narco Analysis and the Sessions Court’s decision affirming that refusal. He urged the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and intervene in what he considered to be an investigation requiring further scientific examination.

The State, on the other hand, opposed the petition and supported the orders passed by the courts below. The State maintained the legal position that the accused could not be compelled to undergo Narco Analysis against their express wishes.

The material before the High Court showed that two of the accused persons had categorically declined to undergo the proposed test. Their refusal therefore brought into focus the constitutional principle recognised by the Supreme Court in Selvi, which prohibits the forcible administration of Narco Analysis and other comparable techniques.

The State’s position was also supported by the legal framework governing non-consensual scientific investigative techniques. The Court was required to consider whether the complainant’s interest in obtaining evidence could override the accused’s individual right to refuse such testing.

The State thus defended the concurrent decisions of the Trial Court and Sessions Court and opposed interference under Article 227. The issue before the High Court was not whether investigation into the alleged murder should continue, but whether the Court could compel an accused to undergo a Narco Analysis Test after the accused had expressly refused consent.

The petitioner attempted to distinguish his case from ordinary applications for Narco Analysis by emphasising the exceptional factual circumstances. The alleged offence involved the death of his daughter, the incident was said to have occurred in circumstances where eyewitness evidence was scarce, and considerable time had elapsed. From the petitioner’s perspective, these factors made scientific investigation particularly important.

The Court, however, was required to balance these concerns against the established constitutional safeguards. The fact that a complainant seeks the test for the purpose of discovering the truth does not, by itself, create a legal power to subject another individual to a test against his or her will.

The competing submissions therefore brought the Court to the central legal question: whether the complainant could assert a right to have an unwilling accused subjected to Narco Analysis merely because the complainant believed that the test might assist in solving the case.

The High Court answered this question by examining the nature of the consent requirement itself. The Court found that the consent contemplated under Selvi is not a procedural formality that can be supplied by another person. It is a personal safeguard belonging to the person whose body and mind are to be subjected to the investigative technique.

Consequently, even if the victim’s family has a legitimate interest in a fair investigation and a proper prosecution, that interest cannot transform into an independent right to compel an accused to undergo a non-consensual Narco Analysis.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed the petition challenging the refusal to compel the accused persons to undergo Narco Analysis, holding that the concurrent findings of the courts below were consistent with binding Supreme Court precedent.

The Court began by recognising the seriousness of the allegations and the circumstances in which the petition had been brought. The petitioner was the father of Yogesh Kumari, who had allegedly been murdered after going missing in November 2017. The High Court acknowledged that the circumstances naturally caused profound anguish to the deceased woman’s father.

The Court made it clear that it was not oblivious to the solemnity of the underlying facts. At the same time, it emphasised that the gravity of the allegations could not justify disregarding established constitutional protections available to an accused.

An important part of the judgment concerned the concept of a fair trial. The Court observed that the proposition that a fair trial embraces both the life and liberty of the accused and the interests of the victim is well established. Similarly, fair investigation is recognised as an incident of a fair trial.

This principle was important because the petitioner had invoked the interest of the victim in seeking further scientific investigation. The High Court did not reject the proposition that the victim has a legitimate interest in a fair investigation. Instead, it clarified that the victim’s interest has to operate within the legal and constitutional framework governing criminal investigation.

The Court then turned to the specific nature of Narco Analysis. The principal authority was the Supreme Court’s judgment in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., delivered in 2010.

In Selvi, the Supreme Court considered the constitutional implications of subjecting individuals to Narco Analysis, polygraph examinations and Brain Electrical Activation Profile tests without their consent. The Supreme Court held that no individual can be forcibly subjected to these techniques.

The principle is rooted in the protection of personal liberty and the constitutional safeguards surrounding the use of one’s mental and bodily faculties for investigative purposes. The requirement of consent therefore operates as a substantive safeguard rather than a mere procedural step.

The Delhi High Court placed particular emphasis on this aspect of Selvi. It observed that the consent contemplated by the Supreme Court is “personal and nonderogable” and belongs to the subject of the test.

The Court reasoned that if an accused himself cannot claim an indefeasible right to undergo a Narco Analysis Test merely because he has applied for it, it would follow even more strongly that a complainant cannot claim an indefeasible right to compel an unwilling accused to undergo the same test.

The Court expressed this principle through the doctrine of a fortiori. If the law does not create an absolute right in favour of an accused to demand that the State subject him to Narco Analysis, there can be no corresponding absolute right in favour of a complainant to demand that the accused be subjected to the test against his wishes.

This distinction is crucial. The issue was not whether Narco Analysis can ever be conducted. The legal position permits such investigative techniques in circumstances where the necessary legal and constitutional requirements are satisfied, most importantly the voluntary consent of the person being tested. What the Court rejected was the proposition that the consent requirement could be bypassed at the request of someone else.

The High Court further observed that the consent cannot be crossed “on the accused’s behalf” when the accused has expressly objected. In other words, the complainant cannot stand in the place of the accused for purposes of providing or overriding the consent required for the test.

This reasoning effectively answered the petitioner’s principal contention. The fact that the deceased’s father sincerely believed that Narco Analysis could help uncover the truth did not give him legal authority to override the accused’s refusal.

The Court also found that the decisions of the Trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge did not suffer from illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. Since the courts below had applied the binding principle governing involuntary Narco Analysis, there was no basis for the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court specifically referred to Amlesh Kumar, where the Supreme Court had reiterated the legal principles concerning Narco Analysis and consent. The High Court held that the concurrent finding that an accused who has categorically declined to undergo Narco Analysis cannot be compelled at the instance of a complainant was fully consistent with the binding law laid down in Selvi and subsequently reiterated.

The Court therefore declined to interfere with the impugned orders.

However, the judgment did not mean that the petitioner was left without any possible remedy concerning the investigation. The High Court took note of the fact that a chargesheet had already been filed. It therefore clarified that the competent Court could examine all aspects of the matter.

Importantly, the High Court left open the possibility of seeking further investigation or monitoring of the investigation, if the petitioner desired and if such relief was otherwise available in accordance with law.

This clarification demonstrates the distinction between two different questions. The first was whether the accused could be forced to undergo Narco Analysis. The answer was no, in view of the binding constitutional safeguards. The second was whether the investigation itself could be examined further or whether additional lawful investigative steps could be considered. The High Court did not foreclose those possibilities.

The Court’s approach therefore sought to preserve both dimensions of criminal justice. The victim’s family has a legitimate interest in a proper and fair investigation, but that interest cannot erase the accused’s individual constitutional protections.

The ruling also reinforces the limits of scientific investigative techniques in criminal proceedings. Scientific methods may assist investigators, but the pursuit of scientific evidence cannot operate outside the constitutional framework. Where the law requires an individual’s consent before a particular investigative technique can be employed, the absence of consent cannot simply be overcome by the seriousness of the allegations or by the investigative value that the complainant believes the procedure may have.

The Court’s reasoning further highlights why consent is treated differently from an ordinary procedural requirement. If consent could be supplied or overridden by another person whenever the latter believed the test would assist an investigation, the protection recognised in Selvi would lose much of its practical meaning.

The High Court accordingly treated the consent requirement as personal to the individual who is to undergo the test. This means that the accused’s express refusal has legal significance and cannot be displaced merely because a victim or complainant seeks a different investigative outcome.

The Court also carefully avoided making any assessment about the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused persons. The judgment was confined to the legality of compelling them to undergo Narco Analysis and to the procedural options available in light of the existing chargesheet.

Ultimately, the petition filed by Pappu Singh was dismissed insofar as it sought interference with the orders refusing to compel the accused persons to undergo Narco Analysis. The High Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227.

At the same time, the competent Court was left free to consider the matter in accordance with law, including any permissible request for further investigation or monitoring of the investigation.

The judgment thus reinforces a fundamental principle in criminal procedure: the search for truth, however important, must remain subject to constitutional safeguards. A complainant’s legitimate desire for justice cannot create a power to compel an unwilling accused to undergo a Narco Analysis Test when the Supreme Court has recognised consent as a personal and non-derogable protection.

The decision in Pappu Singh v. State NCT of Delhi therefore strengthens the legal distinction between the victim’s right to a fair investigation and the accused’s individual right to refuse an intrusive investigative technique. Both interests form part of the criminal justice system, but neither can be pursued by disregarding the legal safeguards governing the other.