Multi-Dimensional Approach Towards The Study Of Narco Analysis - Private And Public Interest

Multi-Dimensional Approach Towards The Study Of Narco Analysis - Private And Public Interest Throwing Down A Gauntlet At Each Other?

Nandini Ravishankar, School of Law at Dr. Vishwanath Karad MIT World Peace University

ABSTRACT

Given that the constitution of India is considered to be the most sacrosanct document revered as the supreme law of the land, there is always a very moot question worth all the galore of popularity whether personal interest in the form of freedom safeguarded by the fundamental rights provision is superimposed by the public interest that largely walks parallel with it. While dealing with this issue Narco Analysis in criminal forensics is what gets the primary recognition. Part 3 of the Constitution of India has contained therein article 20(3) which talks about the right against self-incrimination. But if at all this right stands protected at the investigation stage and continues till the period of gathering evidence and whether it is not derogable at all is a questionable fact. These instances will have to be certainly understood through case laws as will be discussed in this paper. It is incontrovertible to mention that in addition to providing a staunch prohibition to retrospective criminal legislation or ex post facto legislation, it underscores protection against compulsion to give self-incriminating evidence. This was primarily with an objective to draw an iota of balance between- albeit the majority of laws being prospective in nature, the tendency of Legislature to give effect to Laws retrospectively (precisely indictment for offenses committed even prior to the very enactment of laws) and interest of the society as a question has to be rationally thought about.1 Inter- alia the competence of the Legislature to retrospectively punish acts of criminal nature that were not criminal at the time of the commission of the act needs emphasis since it affects the rights of the individual guaranteed to them, in a great way. Prejudicially violative of Art 20 (1) that topic has played to the gallery in the arena of narco analysis.2 Article 20(3) mentions about a person accused of an offense, under no grounds to be compelled to be a witness against himself. However contrary to this, there can be no bar through this class against obtaining thumb Impressions or specimens of a signature at the time of the medical examination of the accused.3 Supreme Court intervention to make the gradual progress in this field has been quite clear that in order to claim immunity from being compelled to make a self- incriminating statement it must appear that a formal accusation has been made against the person at the time when accused of this forced to make an incriminating statement. As will be seen further this immunity even if seen in the purview of Narco Analysis cannot provide immunity to the accused under this at the time of general inquiry or investigation, merely by stating that the statements at the initial stage may at some later point of timely to accusation posed on him. One needs to know before delving deeper that protection under article 20(3) is only available post a formal accusation of a person for the commission of a Crime. This paper tries to have a multidimensional analysis since Narco Analysis is seen as a technique amounting to testimonial compulsion thereby necessitating the protection of constitutional rights. For facilitating the ease of grasp of the same, focus will be on the following:

1) Basic grasp of a Narco Analysis technique and a fusion of the topic with constitutional rights as a realm of a paradigm shift towards broader knowledge of superiority between individuals and societal interests. 2) Understanding brain mapping and evidentiary valuation in the view of the P300 test with broader parallelism with the significance of DNA fingerprinting. 3) Shedding light on relevant case laws where the techniques are incorporated and discussions of drawbacks in a nutshell. 4) Comparison of Narco Analysis in India with the current prevalent system in the USA for a practical conclusion of the Ambit of the paper covered.

Keywords: self-incrimination, constitutional analysis, P300 analysis, brain mapping, Fundamental Rights, public interest.