The court held that the tests violated the accused person’s right against self-incrimination under Art.20 (3), and the right to life and personal liberty under Art. 21.
This is a trendsetting case that leads to questions of when the individual becomes the accused and the state becomes the interrogator and whether the use of these techniques violates the standard of substantive due process.
Article 20(3) protects an individual's choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory. Article 20(3) aims to prevent the forcible `conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue'. The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a `testimonial' character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgment