Published Paper Details:

In the Indian legal system, the use of narco analysis as an investigative method has sparked a heated discussion about its constitutionality and admissibility as evidence. Critics highlight how it violates the fundamental rights protected by Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, while supporters contend that it helps extract the truth and speeds up criminal investigations. This study tracks the development of judicial scrutiny of Narco Analysis in India from investigative zeal to constitutional scepticism. The study examines how the judiciary has struck a balance between the pursuit of truth and the defence of individual liberty and human dignity through a doctrinal analysis of significant court rulings, such as Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010). It also examines international human rights viewpoints in conjunction with statutory provisions found in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. The results show that although Narco Analysis may have some corroboration value, it is not admissible as substantive evidence due to its involuntary nature. In its conclusion, the paper makes the case for a unified framework that protects constitutional rights and permits the prudent application of scientific methods in the administration of criminal justice