Assuming that the Supreme Court was bound to follow the decision in Kathu Kalu Oghad while deciding Selvi, what decision should the Supreme Court have taken in Selvi as regards the forcible administration of narco-analysis on a person?
It would be constitutional, since it is a new technology, and is different from other techniques of extracting evidence like fingerprints or thumb impressions.
It would be unconstitutional, since it would amount to forcibly extracting testimonial evidence.
It would be constitutional, since it only has a physical effect, and so, would amount to extracting physical evidence.
It would be unconstitutional, since it puts a person in an abnormal state of mind where they cannot remember their rights under Article 20.
The correct answer is (b) - it would be unconstitutional, since it would amount to forcibly extracting testimonial evidence. As the passage tells us, the administration of sodium penthathol would lower a persons inhibitions, and take them into a trance, inducing them to converse casually - as a result of which, they may provide information based on personal knowledge (testimonial evidence). While it may be a new technology, and different from thumb impressions or handwriting samples, the forcible use of narco-analysis may result in the extraction of testimonial evidence, and so, (a) cannot be the correct answer. While it may have a physical effect, the end result of forcible administration of narco-analysis would be the extraction of testimonial evidence, and so, (c) cannot be the correct answer. While (d) may be true, it does not address the issue of whether the forcible administration of narco-analysis violates the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20, and so, (d) cannot be the correct answer.