The “Amlesh Kumar Doctrine” – Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Narco-Analysis, Bail Jurisdiction and the Myth of an Indefeasible Right to the Test

1. Introduction

Case: Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 810
Bench: Sanjay Karol J. & Prasanna B. Varale J.
Date: 9 June 2025

The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the High Court of Patna could, while deciding a Section 439 CrPC bail petition, accept the Investigating Officer’s offer to subject all accused and witnesses to a compulsory narco-analysis test. The appellant (husband of a missing woman) also sought clarity on:

whether involuntary narco-analysis can ever be ordered, especially at the bail stage;
whether even voluntary narco-analysis can be treated as conclusive proof of guilt; and
whether an accused has an indefeasible right to demand such a test.

The ruling not only quashed the Patna High Court’s direction but also laid down a nuanced framework—now dubbed the “Amlesh Kumar Doctrine”—on the constitutional, evidentiary and procedural contours of narco-analysis in Indian criminal jurisprudence.

2. Summary of the Judgment

High Court’s order set aside: Accepting the IO’s proposal to conduct narco-analysis on all accused/witnesses was held unconstitutional.
No forced narco-analysis: Re-affirming Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Court reiterated that involuntary tests offend Articles 20(3) & 21.
Limited evidentiary value: Even when voluntarily taken with safeguards, the test report cannot by itself ground a conviction; only derivative discoveries (Section 27 Evidence Act) may be admissible.
No absolute right to the test: An accused may apply to undergo the test, but the court must scrutinize voluntariness, stage and safeguards; it is not an indefeasible right under Section 233 CrPC.
Appropriate stage defined: Any permissible voluntary test should ordinarily be considered when the defence leads evidence at trial, not during investigation or bail hearings.
Guidelines reiterated: The NHRC 2000 guidelines (adopted in Selvi) for consent, legal counsel, judicial oversight and medical supervision were re-emphasised.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 – the fulcrum of the present decision. It had:
- Declared involuntary narco, polygraph and BEAP tests unconstitutional.
- Allowed voluntary tests with strict safeguards, limiting evidentiary use to Section 27 disclosures.
Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana v. State of Gujarat (2019) 14 SCC 522 – criticised the High Court for ordering intrusive scientific tests at the bail stage, cautioning against converting bail hearings into “mini-trials”.
Vinobhai v. State of Kerala 2025 SCC Online SC 178 & Manoj Kumar Soni 2023 SCC Online SC 984 – emphasised that Section 27 recoveries alone, sans corroboration, cannot sustain conviction.
Divergent High-Court views:
- Pro-autonomy strand: e.g., Rajesh Talwar v. CBI (All HC), Dominic Luis (Bom HC)—upheld voluntary requests on facts.
- Right-based strand: Sunil Bhatt v. State (Raj HC) recognised an “indefeasible” defence right under Section 233 CrPC—overruled in effect by the present ruling.

The Supreme Court synthesised these authorities, elevating Selvi to a non-negotiable constitutional baseline and resolving inter-High-Court inconsistencies.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Bail Jurisdiction is Narrow: Under Section 439 CrPC, factors are limited to prima facie case, gravity, flight risk, etc. Compelling scientific tests lies outside that remit, and permitting them would amount to an unconstitutional, coercive fishing expedition.
Articles 20(3) & 21 Are Non-Derogable: Forced narco-analysis compels self-incrimination and violates substantive due process; no balancing can dilute these rights.
Voluntariness ≠ Evidentiary Sufficiency: Even if an accused volunteers, the hypnotic/drug-induced state eliminates conscious control, undermining reliability; thus the report per se lacks probative value.
Role of Section 27 Evidence Act: Only independently verifiable discoveries flowing from the test can be admitted; the Court cited Vinobhai to stress the need for corroboration.
Right to Lead Evidence: Section 233 CrPC lets an accused produce defence evidence, but that statutory entitlement does not stretch to demanding procedures that inherently threaten constitutional guarantees or judicial time; courts retain discretion.
Policy Concerns: Unchecked resort to narco-analysis could flood courts with “frivolous litigation” and abuse vulnerable suspects; judicial gate-keeping is therefore essential.

3.3 Impact and Prospective Significance

Standardised National Position: By clarifying that there is no indefeasible right and that bail courts cannot order tests, the ruling aligns all High Courts with a uniform approach.
Bail Proceedings Demarcated: Trial and investigative experiments cannot be snuck into bail hearings, reinforcing the doctrinal purity of bail jurisprudence.
Evidentiary Threshold Raised: Prosecutors can no longer rely on voluntary narco reports as a prosecutorial shortcut; corroborative evidence is mandatory.
Safeguards Reinvigorated: NHRC guidelines gain fresh judicial imprimatur, compelling police and magistrates to follow a strict protocol.
Overruling Effect: Decisions like Sunil Bhatt that viewed narco-analysis as a statutory right are effectively neutralised.
Academic & Legislative Dialogue: The explicit recognition of the “suspect nature” of the test may fuel legislative deliberations on regulating or even proscribing the practice.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Narco-Analysis: An interrogation method where a sedative (often sodium pentothal) is administered to induce a hypnotic state, purportedly lowering inhibition and prompting involuntary speech.
Article 20(3) – Right Against Self-Incrimination: No person accused of an offence can be compelled to be a witness against himself. “Compulsion” covers both physical force and psychological pressure.
Article 21 – Personal Liberty & Substantive Due Process: Any State action curtailing liberty must be fair, just and reasonable.
Section 27 Evidence Act (Discovery Rule): Even if a statement is inadmissible (e.g., made in police custody), the part that leads to discovery of a new fact is admissible.
Section 233 CrPC: Gives an accused the opportunity to enter defence evidence after prosecution closes its case; it is not carte blanche to demand any procedure whatsoever.
NHRC Guidelines 2000: A protocol ensuring informed consent, judicial oversight, legal representation and medical safeguards for lie-detector tests; extended by the Court to narco-analysis and BEAP.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court, by crafting the “Amlesh Kumar Doctrine,” has:

Re-asserted Selvi as the constitutional compass prohibiting involuntary narco-analysis;
Declared that even voluntary tests cannot, by themselves, secure conviction;
Demarcated the scope of bail proceedings, forbidding invasive tests at that stage; and
Clarified that the accused enjoy only a conditional, not an absolute, opportunity to undergo narco-analysis, subject to judicial scrutiny and rigorous safeguards.

This precedent will likely curb investigative overreach, encourage meticulous evidence collection, and reinforce fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) and 21. Courts across the country now have a precise template on when—and more importantly, when not—to permit narco-analysis, ensuring that the pursuit of truth never trumps constitutional liberty.