1. Consent to undergo Narco Analysis Test is revocable before administration; compulsion violates Article 20(3) and 21. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 486
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Subhash Saini S/o Shri Basti Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 51 of 2016
Decided On : 12-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Arun Singh Shekhawat
For the Respondent: Jitendra Singh Rathore
For the Appellant : Arun Singh Shekhawat
For the Respondent: Jitendra Singh Rathore
Consent for a Narco-Analysis Test must be voluntary and is not irrevocable. An accused person holds the right to withdraw consent prior to the test's administration; forcing the test against their will violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and personal liberty under Article 21.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 20(3) and 21 - Right against self-incrimination and right to life and personal liberty - Narco-Analysis Test - Withdrawal of consent - Right to remain silent is a foundational principle of justice used to prevent forced confessions and undue coercion (Paras 1, 2, 6). No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (Para 6).
(B) Narco-Analysis Test - Requirement of voluntary consent - Forcible administration of such techniques violates the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty (Paras 10, 17). Any involuntary test breaches constitutional protection by forcing an individual to speak in a drug-induced state, thereby suppressing free will (Para 17).
(C) Withdrawal of Consent - Consent for a forensic psychological investigation is not irrevocable and can be withdrawn before or during the course of recording (Paras 15, 16, 18). Compelling a person to undergo the test after withdrawal of consent violates the fundamental right to remain silent and right to personal liberty (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an accused in a criminal case, initially consented to a Narco-Analysis Test. The trial court permitted the test based on this consent. Subsequently, the petitioner applied to revoke the consent before the test was administered. The trial court rejected the application, ruling that consent, once given, cannot be revoked.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the right against self-incrimination protects a suspect from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence. A Narco-Analysis Test cannot be conducted against the wish and will of the suspect. Consent to such a test is not irrevocable and may be withdrawn prior to its administration.
Issues: Whether consent given for a Narco-Analysis Test can be withdrawn before its administration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since Narco-Analysis suppresses a subject's controls and inhibitions, it requires informed and voluntary consent. Forcing the test after consent is withdrawn violates the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Result: The instant criminal writ petition stands allowed. The impugned orders stand quashed and set-aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- kidnapping
-
offences against the person
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. A suspect may withdraw consent for a Narco test before its administration. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Writ allowed; orders for Narco test on petitioner quashed and set aside. (Para 19 , 20 )
4. Can consent given for a Narco Analysis Test be withdrawn before its administration?
Yes, consent is revocable; compelling a test after withdrawal violates fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) and 21. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. What is the legal status of involuntary narcoanalysis test results?
They violate the right against self-incrimination and cannot be admitted as evidence; forced administration breaches personal liberty. (Para 10 )
6. Does an accused have an indefeasible right to undergo a narcoanalysis test?
No, there is no indefeasible right; the court must consider totality of circumstances, such as free consent and safeguards. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
7. What safeguards must be followed for a voluntary narcoanalysis test?
Consent before a magistrate, access to a lawyer, explanation of implications, and strict adherence to NHRC guidelines. (Para 10 , 13 )
ORDER :
01. The right to remain silent is a cornerstone of criminal justice systems globally. Rooted in the principle of fairness, this right protects individuals from self-incrimination, ensuring that no one is compelled to testify or provide evidence against themselves in criminal proceedings. In India, this right is explicitly enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution and further reinforced by various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
02. The right to remain silent is a legal principle that protects individuals from being compelled to provide evidence or testimony that may incriminate them in a criminal proceeding. Rooted in the principle of “nemo debet prodere ipsum” (no one is bound to accuse themselves), it ensures fairness by safeguarding the accused from coercion or undue influence.
03. In India, this right is enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which states that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. It extends to various stages of investigation and trial, emphasising the presumption of innocence and placing the burden of proof on the prosecution. This right is pivotal in upholding justice and individual dignity.
04. The right to remain silent has its roots in medieval England, where it emerged as a response to oppressive practices in the Star Chamber and High Commission courts of the 16th century. During this period, suspects were compelled to take an “ex-officio oath” and provide answers, often under threat of torture or severe punishment. Refusal to comply often led to coercion or physical abuse.
05. The principle “nemo debet prodere ipsum” (no one should be compelled to accuse themselves) gradually evolved to protect individuals from such practices. This principle became a cornerstone of the common law tradition, influencing legal systems worldwide.
06. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution of India explicitly guarantees the right to remain silent. It states:
“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
This provision ensures that individuals accused of a crime are not forced to incriminate themselves during investigations or trials. The right serves several critical purposes:
1. Protecting individuals from undue coercion or forced confessions.
2. Upholding the presumption of innocence.
3. Ensuring that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
07. Additionally, Article 21 mandates a fair and just procedure in criminal proceedings, further reinforcing the right to remain silent.
08. The right to remain silent is more than a procedural safeguard; it is a foundational principle of justice. By preventing forced confessions and undue coercion, it ensures fairness in criminal proceedings and upholds the dignity of the individual. The right to remain silent, enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, serves as a vital safeguard against self- incrimination. Its importance lies in preserving the presumption of innocence, ensuring that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and maintaining fairness in the justice system.
09 Indian courts have consistently upheld this right, aligning it with international human rights standards. However, challenges such as statutory exceptions and evolving investigative techniques call for a nuanced approach to its application. As a cornerstone of justice, the right to remain silent must be preserved and protected to ensure the integrity of India’s legal system and the fair treatment of all individuals accused of crimes. [Article by Aishwarya Agrawal on “Right to remain silent.”]
1. In recent years, the use of scientific techniques such as narco analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping has sparked significant legal and ethical debate within India’s criminal justice system. These methods, often portrayed as tools to uncover concealed truths, raise fundamental concerns regarding personal liberty, bodily autonomy, and the right against self-incrimi
