A special NIA court in Jammu refused polygraph and narco-analysis on two men accused in the 22 April Pahalgam attack, holding that such tests cannot be forced and would violate Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination). The message is simple: consent first, due process always, even in terror cases.
Syllabus: GS2 / GS3 / Prelims (internal security • criminal justice • fundamental rights)

What changed 

A recent— order reported in mid-September. The NIA sought permission to use polygraph and narco tests to get sharper leads. In open court, the procedure was explained; both accused refused consent. The judge rejected the plea. This matters because such requests are common in high-pressure probes, but the Constitution sets a clear limit that courts continue to enforce.

The core idea

A polygraph tracks body signals (pulse, sweating) while questions are asked. It can show stress, but it does not prove truth or guilt. Narco-analysis uses sedatives to lower inhibitions; forcing it on an accused amounts to testimonial compulsion. Indian law protects an accused from being made to assist the prosecution with his own body or mind.

• Rule of thumb: These tests need voluntary, informed consent.
  
• No consent = no test.
  
• Even with consent, results are only investigative aids, not standalone proof.

Law and courts: the settled position

Over time, guidance and judgments have built a firm framework to prevent coercion and protect dignity.

• NHRC safeguards: If volunteered, tests must have informed consent, access to lawyer, medical oversight, and full audio-video recording.
  
• Supreme Court (Selvi, 2010): Involuntary narco, polygraph, brain-mapping violate Article 20(3). Information obtained without consent is inadmissible, except where it leads to a separate, independently proven discovery.
  
• Today’s line: Courts keep barring forced use of these techniques; the Jammu order simply applies this settled law.

What this means in practice

• For investigators. Build cases with admissible material—forensics, CCTV and digital trails, call records, money flows, witness statements—and lawful interrogation. Over-reliance on involuntary tests risks evidence being thrown out.
• For the accused. The order protects the right to silence and guards against coercive mind-probing. Refusing these tests cannot be held against an accused.
• For courts and public trust. Enforcing limits in a terror case shows India can pursue security within the Constitution, which is vital for legitimacy.

Why this keeps coming up

Terror investigations bring time pressure and demand for quick answers. Polygraph or narco can look like shortcuts. But because involuntary use is compulsion and results are often unreliable or inadmissible, leaning on them can delay trials and weaken prosecutions. The steady judicial message: build evidence that survives scrutiny, not just headlines.

Way forward 

• Forensics first: Upgrade DNA, ballistics, explosive-residue and cyber-forensics capacity; tighten chain-of-custody.
  
• Consent done right: If an accused volunteers, take written informed consent, ensure medical oversight, and record the process end-to-end.
  
• Clean interrogation SOPs: Strong but non-coercive questioning; swift magisterial oversight for key statements.
  
• Witness & victim support: Protection and counselling to improve reliable testimony.
  
• Lawful data fusion: Combine crowd-sourced visuals, telecom metadata, and financial trails within legal limits.

Exam hook

Key takeaways

• Article 20(3) bars compulsory self-incrimination; forced polygraph/narco/brain-mapping are not allowed.
  
• Consent is mandatory; even then, results are aids, not proof.
  
• Strong cases rely on admissible forensics, digital evidence, and witnesses, not on involuntary tests.

Prelims Question
Consider the following statements:

1. Polygraph or narco-analysis can be conducted on an accused without consent in national-security cases.
   
2. In Selvi (2010), the Supreme Court held that involuntary narco, polygraph, and brain-mapping violate Article 20(3).
   
3. A special NIA court in Jammu (Aug 2025) rejected NIA’s plea for polygraph/narco in the Pahalgam case because the accused refused consent.

How many are correct? (a) One (b) Two (c) All three (d) None
Answer: (b) Two — (2) and (3) are correct; (1) is incorrect.

One-line wrap: Fight terror—within the Constitution: consent first, forensics forward.