Latest News
Back
Document:
A fruitful Criticism: Selvi v. State of Karnataka
Introduction:
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”[1] –Albert Einstein
True words by Albert Einstein; but this judgement is a commentary to the statement and will be dealing with naming Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka has given a tough fight against technology on behalf of humanity. The judgement is delivered by the then Hon’ble Cheif Justice himself and two of his other companion judges rendered the practice of narcoanalysis, brain mapping, FMRI and polygraph test to be unconstitutional and void. One of its kinds; the judgement delivered by a three judges bench deals firstly with the all-new aspect of privacy and right against self-incrimination’ protected by Article 20(3) of the constitution. Basically, this is a landmark judgement in the history of Indian Judiciary.
Narcoanalysis, Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP), Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) and Polygraph are those boons of modern medical science which are being followed as a substitute to third-degree to tap out information of the accused that can be used as evidence. However, there are some levels set by the constitution which anyone grasping evidence has to adhere to and the actions mentioned above manages to contravene all of these standards and could be easily held unconstitutional.
Facts of the Case:
In the year 2004 Smt. Selvi and others filed the first batch of criminal appeal followed by subsequent appeals in the Supreme Court by the honourable bench were taken up together in the year 2005, 2006 and 2007 and 2010 via special leave petition on 5th May 2010. It is a capacious judgement of 256 pages. The present batch of criminal appeals objections has been put up in respect of instances where individuals who are the suspects, accused or witnesses in an investigation have been arranged to these tests without their consent. Such measures have been defended by citing the significance of extracting information which could help to prevent criminal activities by the investigating agencies in the future as well as in circumstances where it is difficult to collect evidence through ordinary means. It has also been incited that administering these techniques does not originate any bodily harm and that the extracted information will be used only for building up investigation efforts and will not be acknowledged as evidence during the trial stage. The contention is that improvements in fact-finding will consequently help to increase the rate of acquittal as well as the rate of prosecution during the investigation stage. Yet another line of reasoning is that these scientific techniques are a better alternative to the allegedly and regrettable widespread use of ‘third-degree methods’ by investigators.
Decision by the Judges:
The following judgement is delivered by the judges’ honourable bench namely K.G. Balakrishnan C.J.I, J.M. Panchal Justice and R.V. Raveendran Justice. The Supreme Court mainly on the grounds came to this trendsetting landmark judgement and founded upon the rights conferred by Article 20(3). The judgement delivered can be summarised as follows:-
K.G. Balakrishnan Chief Justice of India.
Some of the appropriate observations made by the C.J.I. himself worth noting and summarized as follows are:-
- As mentioned before, ‘the right against self-incrimination’ is now observed as essential protection in criminal procedure. It's underlying reasoning widely corresponds with the two objectives – firstly, that of ensuring the reliability of the declaration made by an accused, and secondly, ensuring that such statements are made voluntarily. It is possible that a person accused or suspected of a crime may have been forced to testify through methods involving coercion, inducements or threats during the investigative stage. When a person is tried to testify on his/her own behalf, there is a higher probability of such testimony being false. It is undesirable when the false testimony impedes the integrity of the trial and the subsequent judgement. Therefore, the purpose of the ‘rule against involuntary confessions’ is to ensure that the testimony considered during trial is reliable. The proposition is the involuntary statements which are more likely to mislead the prosecutor and the judge, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice. False statements are likely delayed and obstructed in the investigation efforts even during the investigative stage
- The conclusions made that, no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the methods in question, whether in the condition of investigation in criminal cases or other any case. Committing so would amount to an unwarranted encroachment into personal liberty. However, judges do leave their courtroom for the voluntary administration of the challenging techniques in the case of criminal justice, provided that certain precautions are in place. Also, the test results cannot be admitted as evidence when the subject has given consent to undergo these tests, because the subject does not exert conscious control during the administration of the test. However, any material or information that is subsequently located with the help of voluntary organise test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Case Analysis:
- Balakrishnan C.J.I. has provided the majority of judgement which gives huge emphasis to Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution dealing majorly with the aspect of self-incrimination. But the minority aspect that is privacy and due process has not appeared to have been given a salient position in this judgement. The search for effective support to interrogation is probably very old as human’s need to obtain information from an unaccommodating source and as persistent as agitation to shortcut any twisting path. In the records of the police investigation, the physical coercion is been substituted for meticulous and time-consuming inquiry in the thought that direct methods produce ready results. The Criminology field has expanded swiftly during the last few years, which improving the efficiency of interrogation and have increased concomitantly and made a demand for supplemental methods of detecting deception.
Conclusion:
This article basically states about the judgement of Selvi v. State of Karnataka which implies that a decision by the court no matter how well made by judges will always subject to criticism just because there is always a scope of improvement. The criticism made on the judgements is due to casts a shadow on the Court’s to make progressive judgments. Although this judgement is one of the most landmark and trendsetting judgement of its time, but still when it is democratic and constitutionality criticism is ought to come up. Moreover, there is always the scope open for critics when it comes to judicial decision. But on comparison to other landmark judgements, this is one of those few judgments where the critics might find it hard to find a gap. This judgement is a perfect example of just and neutral decision.
Document:
