Case at a Glance
A father whose 21-year-old daughter was found dead in 2017 asked the trial court to subject the accused to a narco analysis test, saying that in a murder committed inside a room, scientific tools were the only hope. The accused who were asked declined, and both the trial court and the Sessions Court refused his request. The Delhi High Court upheld those orders, holding that under Selvi v. State of Karnataka consent is a personal and non-derogable safeguard of the person being tested, so a complainant cannot compel an unwilling accused to undergo the test. It left the father free to seek further investigation or monitoring of the investigation in terms of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2007) 12 SC CK 0020
FIR No. 691/2017 was registered on 17.11.2017 at PS New Ashok Nagar under Sections 365, 302, 174A and 34 IPC after the petitioner’s 21-year-old daughter, who had gone out to buy vegetables on 16.11.2017, went missing and was later found dead. The petitioner suspected two tenants. Dissatisfied with the investigation, he himself, and not the Investigating Officer, applied to the trial court for a narco analysis test on the accused and for a status report. Two of the accused, through counsel, recorded statements declining the test.
On 08.01.2026 the trial court dismissed the application because the test could not be enforced on accused persons who had refused. On 23.03.2026 the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, dismissed his revision, holding that the application should have come from the Investigating Officer and that compulsory narco testing violates Article 20(3) and substantive due process under Selvi. The father then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 528 BNSS, invoking the victim’s right to fair investigation under Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 04 SC CK 0133 and Pooja Pal v. Union of India.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a complainant obtain a direction for narco analysis of accused persons who refuse consent, and does the victim’s right to a fair investigation override the accused’s protection under Articles 20(3) and 21?
Consent belongs to the person being tested
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the question is settled by the three-Judge Bench decision in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2010) 05 SC CK 0048, which held that “no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question”. Relying on Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2025) 06 SC CK 0073 (2025 INSC 810), which held that “there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test”, the Court reasoned that consent “is a personal and nonderogable safeguard available to the subject of the test”. It cannot be waived on the accused’s behalf, over his objection, at the request of a third party. If even an accused cannot insist on such a test as of right, a complainant certainly cannot compel an unwilling accused to undergo one.
The Court accepted that fair trial includes fair investigation, that the victim’s interests deserve protection, and acknowledged the father’s grief. But it did not accept that these rights override the accused’s protections under Articles 20(3) and 21. Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the trial court and the Sessions Court, it declined to interfere under Article 227. It noted, however, that the trial court’s order recorded refusals from only two of the accused while treating all surviving accused as having refused, and it left the concerned court free to examine all aspects, with the petitioner at liberty to seek further investigation or monitoring of the investigation, referring to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.
What the Court Actually Held
- A complainant cannot compel an accused who declines consent to undergo a narco analysis test; Selvi v. State of Karnataka settles the issue.
- Consent is a personal and non-derogable safeguard of the subject of the test and cannot be exercised on his behalf at a third party’s request.
- The victim’s right to fair investigation and trial under Article 21 does not override the accused’s protections under Articles 20(3) and 21.
- The petition is dismissed and the orders dated 08.01.2026 and 23.03.2026 are upheld, but the petitioner may seek further investigation or monitoring of the investigation, and the concerned court may examine all aspects.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Families of victims in unsolved cases frequently seek narco, polygraph or brain-mapping tests; this ruling makes clear such requests cannot succeed against an unwilling accused.
- It applies the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Amlesh Kumar alongside Selvi, confirming that consent is the test subject’s alone.
- It points complainants towards the remedies that remain: further investigation and court monitoring of the investigation.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Victims’ Families
- A court cannot order a narco test on an accused who refuses, however serious the offence.
- If you are dissatisfied with the investigation, ask the Magistrate for further investigation or monitoring of the investigation.
- Your right to a fair investigation is recognised, but it operates through lawful investigative tools.
For Counsel
- Applications for involuntary narco analysis are foreclosed by Selvi; frame relief around further investigation under Sakiri Vasu instead.
- Note that the Sessions Court also faulted the application for being moved by the complainant rather than the Investigating Officer.
- Check whether the record actually shows each accused’s refusal; the High Court flagged that the trial court recorded refusals from only two accused.
Key Takeaways
- No narco analysis test without the free consent of the person to be tested.
- A complainant cannot waive that consent on behalf of the accused.
- Victims’ fair-investigation rights do not override Article 20(3).
- The remedy for a weak investigation lies in further investigation or court monitoring.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court order a narco test on an accused who refuses?
No. Relying on Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Delhi High Court held that no individual can be forcibly subjected to narco analysis and that consent is a personal, non-derogable safeguard.
Can the victim’s family seek a narco test on the accused?
The Court held that a complainant cannot compel an unwilling accused to undergo the test. Even an accused has no indefeasible right to insist on one, as held in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
What can a family do if it is unhappy with the investigation?
The Court left the petitioner free to seek further investigation or monitoring of the investigation, referring to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., and said the concerned court is free to examine all aspects of the matter.
Conclusion
The Court was sympathetic to a father who has waited since 2017 for answers, but held that the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination cannot be set aside at a complainant’s request. The path forward it identified is a more rigorous investigation, not an involuntary test.
Practical takeaway: In cases with no eyewitnesses, press for further investigation and judicial monitoring under Sakiri Vasu; an application for involuntary narco analysis of the accused will not succeed.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com