The government is also conscious of the fact that it was due to the narco test that Ajmal Kasab had given vital details about the conspiracy hatched by non-state actors from Pakistan.
The government is examining the Supreme Court judgment that had held that a crime suspect can’t be forced to undergo drug-induced tests like narco analysis.
Reason: It intends to arm the anti-terror Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) with certain “scientific” interrogation tools.
The government has culled out the portion of the judgment that had indirectly asked lawmakers to enact legislation so that constitutionally impermissible applications can be carried out on an accused involved in waging war against the state, terrorist activities and other grave offences.
Law minister M Veerappa Moily on Tuesday didn’t rule out the possibility of amending the UAPA. “The court doesn’t say the test can’t be done. What it says is that it should be done in a healthy environment,” he told DNA.
The government is also conscious of the fact that it was due to the narco test that the Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab had given vital details about the conspiracy hatched by non-state actors from Pakistan.
According to the minister, results of a scientific test are “admissible” in the trial provided they are corroborated with other evidence.
“Personally, I am not in favour of totally banning the scientific interrogation tests,” he said, adding that the multi-crore fake stamp paper accused Abdul Karim Telgi had also narrated enormous details about his nationwide network when he was put to brain mapping and narco test.
In its May 5 judgment, the apex court had said any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Refraining from suggesting that the government could enact a law through parliament with a view to make these tests valid in certain “compelling public interest and exceptional circumstances when public order is affected”, the apex court had said such legislation arguments merit consideration.
“The task of legislature to arrive at a pragmatic balance between the often competing interests of personal liberty and public safety,” SC had ruled.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}