Top Judgments of 2025 | Amlesh Kumar case | Constitutionality of Narco Analysis Test

0:00 Hey everybody, I am Priya and in today's video we are going to start understanding the top most judgements of 2025 one by one. So first of all we will understand why any judgment is important? How is it impacting the life of a normal Indian ? What problem is it solving and what should be our main takeaway from any judgement. So this is going to be a series that you simply cannot afford to miss. And in the description of every video you will find two things. Firstly, you will get PDF of all the important cases. Download this and you will also get the link for the next important case. So do check it out. Let's start this video. Our first and most important case of the entire year is that of Amlesh Kumar versus State of Bihar. There is a criminal law judgment right now in which a very

0:45 important and interesting question comes before the Supreme Court, whether an accused can demand a narco analysis test on himself to prove his innocence or not? So first we will understand the facts of this case carefully. We will understand the important information related to this carefully and then we will know what the Supreme Court said in this case. So this is a very interesting case. Easily understandable. See, in this case, charges of criminal harassment and disappearance of wife were filed against Akyuz and his family. Now this accused reaches High Court to get bail. Then the police says that we have to collect more proof and evidence in this case. And hence we want to conduct narco analysis test on the accused. Hearing this, the High Court rejects the bail application and gives permission for narco analysis test. Now the

1:30 accusation against this permission of the High Court reaches the Supreme Court and it says that conducting an involuntary narco test without my consent and against my will is a violation of my fundamental rights. There is valation. Which fundamental rights? Article 20 Clause Three and Article 21 of the Constitution. Most. So what are we going to do first now? We will understand what is this Narco Analysis test ? Is it illegal? Is it admissible? Then we will understand the leading case, the landmark case on this entire topic. And after understanding both these things well, we will know what and why the Supreme Court said in our present case of Amlesh Kumar vs State of Bihar so that you understand everything well and there is no confusion. Let us start with what is Narco Analysis Test? So

2:16 in this, a drug called Sodium Pentothal is induced inside a human being. After which he goes into subconscious state. Due to which his probability of speaking the truth increases. And that is why it is also called truth serum test. Now two more tests come in this category. Your polygraph test, which we also call the light detector test, is now complete. What physical reactions is the person giving when questions are asked in this ? Like increased heart rate, breathing, sweating, all these things are monitored. And the third one was the brain mapping test. What electrical signals is the brain releasing when questions are asked in this? This is monitored. Now in all these three procedures, somewhere or the other, the physical and mental privacy of a person is violated. That

3:02 comes into question. And that is where Article 20, Clause 3 and 21 of the Constitution comes into play. Now what is Article 20 Clause Three? Right Against Self- Incrimination which states that in no case an accused can testify against himself. For example, if a murder case is going on then you cannot ask the accused to testify against you. And this protection is given in Article 20 Clause 3 which is your right against self-incrimination. And the second article is Article 21 of the Constitution which is your right to life and personal liberty. In which the right to privacy is also protected, which protects both physical and mental privacy. Now let us also know an important term used in the judgment. So there are two types of rights, indefinable rights

3:47 and defisable rights. Indefeasible rights are not absolute rights. Rights that cannot be taken away from you. One that cannot be taken away. This term has been used in judgment. So it is important to know this. Now let's come to the most important part. So, the leading case in the three angles of truth serum or narcoanalysis test, its admissibility and privacy is Selvi versus State of Karnataka which is a judgment of 2010. Let us understand this important case clearly. Now we read a lot of headlines every year. Many make so many judgements and get lost in so many details. But you know what, it's not our fault. The system is des to be confusing. Its technicality itself is its entry barrier. But it doesn't have to be like this. Important things shouldn't be so difficult to understand. And

4:33 if you are preparing for CLAT PG or any LLM exam then you have to check out our flash drive course on CLAT PG in which we explain important topics and judgements in a very systematic way every week in an easy to understand way. So if you want clarity on the concepts you can watch our in-depth videos. Or you can watch our most loved feature Quick Revision Videos. They are easy, they are quick and they are digestible so that you don't get an anxiety attack seeing the length of the content. I am seriously telling you that in this course of CLAT PG we are doing so many experiments. There are so many fun activities to do so that you don't feel stressed out. You should not feel anxious. So in this course, from day one we take care of the entire planning, sorting out things and strategizing for you so that you can focus on things that really matter. So

5:20 if you want to approach this exam in a better way , want to create a good discipline for yourself, want to get into a good momentum. So do check out our course. You will find all its details here and in the description below. And if you are really serious about this exam then just check out the offer page of this course. And you will see the different ways in which we can help you. du check it out. So look, the important case of Selvi versus State of Karnataka is very useful and gives very clear directions. So, first of all, it talks about the constitutional validity of all these three tests – Narco Analysis, Polygraph and Brain Mapping test – and it clearly states that if you administer any of these three tests involuntary without consent, then it will be an intrusion into the mental privacy of that person. Meaning, there will be a valuation of Article 20, Clause 3 and 21. Then whatever

6:07 result comes from that test, it will neither be legal nor admissible. But in this case a very important exception has been talked about. Now, this exception says that if an accused is giving consent voluntarily saying that yes, I want to undergo Narco analysis test and you are getting that consent recorded in front of a magistrate and when that test is being administered, his lawyer is present there or an independent agency like a hospital is getting the test done, then whatever result of that test comes, it will be admissible, it will be legal. So in the Selvi vs State of Karnataka case it has been stated very clearly that if this test is done without consent then it will not be legal. He will not be admissible. There will be an introjection of mental privacy. 20 Clause 3 and 21 will be evaluated. But if a person is giving consent himself, voluntarily saying that yes, I want to get the test done, then it will be legal and acceptable.

6:54 So, look, you got to know all the facts related to this case , you got to know all the initiatives , you got to know the landmark case. So let's move to the present case. So these were the three important questions before the Supreme Court in the case of Amlesh Kumar versus State of Bihar. First, should the High Court have given permission for narco analysis test while hearing the bail application or not? The second question is whether these tests can be the sole basis of conviction? Meaning, can the entire punishment be given on the basis of the statements given during these tests or not? And the third question was whether an accused can demand narco analysis edge for himself to defend himself or not? Now how did the Supreme Court answer these three questions and what was the reason given? Let us understand this one by one. So the Supreme Court answered the first question

7:40 in the negative and said that until the High Court ensures that the guidelines and safeguards given in the Selvi versus State of Karnataka case are being met or not, the High Court cannot give permission for narcoanalysis test. The response to the second question also came in negative. And the court said that the statements given during these tests cannot be the sole basis of conviction. But there is a twist. These statements will be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Now what does this section 27 say? It says that during these tests, if an accused makes a statement that leads to a new fact related to the case, then that statement will be admissible. For example, in a murder case, if the accused says that yes, I have committed the murder, then it will

8:26 not be admissible because it will be a violation of Clause 3. But if the accused says that yes I have committed the murder and after committing the murder I have hidden the weapon in this particular area of my garden and then that weapon is recovered from there, then that statement will be admissible. So this is your Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which makes it admissible. Now answer the third question in positive. So two negative and one positive. In this the court said that yes an accused can demand narco analysis test to defend himself. But remember, in the beginning we understood a term called indefinable right. So in this the court said that this demand of yours is not an indefeasible right. Meaning, this is not an absolute right and if the court wants, it can even deny your demand. So this was our first case in which

9:13 we learned about some important provisions. Learned about a landmark case and about mental privacy that if this test is administered without consent then it will be neither legal nor admissible but learned about an exception that if it is desirable then it will be both legal and admissible. So friends, this was today's video in which we covered a case of important judgments of 2025. Now we have to continue understanding many more cases in this manner in simple language. To stay updated on that you can subscribe to the channel. And if you have any suggestions or feedback do let me know in the comment section and I will write back to you. I hope you have learned something new in today's video. That's it for now. See you in the next class. Bye-bye.