Right against Self-Incrimination under Article 20(3): Scope in the Age of Narco-analysis and DNA Testing

The right against self-incrimination, enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India as a fundamental right, provides that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This research paper critically examines the scope and efficacy of this cherished procedural safeguard in the contemporary era, where rapid advancements in forensic science and investigative technologies, particularly narco-analysis, brain mapping, and DNA testing, present profound legal and philosophical challenges. The research paper begins by elucidating the historical evolution and jurisprudential foundations of the right against self-incrimination, analysing its core principles the protection of individual autonomy, the prevention of coercive practices, and the maintenance of a fair adversarial process. The central inquiry focuses on whether the compelling nature of these modern scientific techniques constitutes a form of testimonial compulsion, effectively forcing the individual to “be a witness” against themselves by extracting evidence of a personal and intimate nature from their body and mind. This paper argues that while the Indian judiciary has made significant strides in cases like Selvi v. State of Karnataka by prohibiting the forcible administration of narco-analysis, the legal framework remains ambiguous and inconsistently applied, especially concerning the compelled extraction of biological material for DNA profiling. The analysis of our paper reveals a critical jurisprudential tension: the courts’ desire to harness scientific methods for truth-finding often clashes with the fundamental right to privacy and the privilege against self-incrimination. The research concludes that existing interpretations of Article 20(3) require a more robust and technologically conscious expansion to adequately protect individual liberties. We propose a recalibrated legal test that distinguishes between physical and testimonial evidence more coherently and recommends legislative action to establish clear procedural safeguards and also ensuring that the pursuit of scientific evidence does not erode the foundational principles of a just criminal justice system.