7.
Selvi’s daughter Kavita had married Shivakumar of a different caste against the wishes of her family. Shivakumar was brutally killed in 2004, and Selvi and two others became the suspects. Since the prosecution’s case depended entirely on circumstantial evidence, it sought the court’s permission to conduct polygraphy and brain-mapping tests on the three persons. The court granted permission and the tests were conducted. When the results of the polygraphy test indicated signs of deception, the prosecution sought the court’s permission to perform narcoanalysis on the three persons. The magistrate directed the three to undergo narcoanalysis. All of them challenged this decision in the Karnataka High Court, but failed to get relief. They then went in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court held
A:
Compulsory brain-mapping and polygraph tests and narcoanalysis were in violation of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.
B:
Compulsory brain-mapping and polygraph tests and narcoanalysis were valid under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.
C:
Compulsory brain-mapping and polygraph tests and narcoanalysis were in violation of Articles 20(1) and 21v of the Constitution.
D:
Compulsory brain-mapping and polygraph tests and narcoanalysis were in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The answer is:
A
