How can a culprit give consent for a test which would expose his crime? The Supreme Court verdict holding Narco and other lie-detecting tests illegal will have far-reaching consequences to hit back investigations involving even persons accused of terrorist activities. It would have been better if the Court had listed other new scientific techniques which could be alternatively used to reveal truth as suggested by some senior lawyers. The verdict may lead to add police-pressure for achieving ‘consent’ for conducting such tests.
Unrestricted freedom to everyone including even those involved in militant activities is dangerous, because it is quite clear that criminal-minded persons misuse various liberties provided in the Constitution for citizens. If responsibility and sense of duty to abide by law cannot be expected from everyone then it is not proper to give unrestricted freedom in the name of civic or human rights. However restrictions like getting nod from High Courts or the Supreme Court for conducting such tests could have been a better alternative.
Subhash Chandra Agrawal
Delhi