Pros and cons of narco test

It’s high time the supreme court delivered its much-awaited judgment on the constitutionality of the controversial Narco test. A bench headed by chief justice KG Balakrishnan reserved the verdict on January 25, almost eleven months ago.

Now more than before, a judgment is needed on the subject as the central government is in a hurry to enact an anti-terror law. CJI Balakrishnan said the proposed law should not defy the right to life. But, he had also observed during the hearing of a PIL against narco tests last year that at least this mode of interrogation removes the scope of third degree during custodial interrogation. Lawyers opposed to Narco test said it defies human rights.

A noted lawyer and former solicitor-general, who appeared on behalf of the CBI, said the drug-induced test employs “modern and scientific techniques, which are authorised by law and should be carried out where there are reasonable grounds for believing that such tests will provide evidence. Such tests cannot be construed as invasion of privacy of the accused”.

Though the Constitution is silent on what should be the optimum time for any court to deliver the verdict, the apex court stressed the need for a speedy justice delivery system. About a decade ago, it framed guidelines for compliance by high court judges on judgment delivery. When a magistrate in Bihar delayed pronouncement of a judgment by nine months in 1961, the Patna high court chastised him saying, “The magistrate who cannot find time to write judgment within reasonable time after hearing argument should not do any judicial work at all’’.

But the high court forgot the rebuff given to a magistrate, as it took two years for the court to pronounce a judgment after reserving it. An aggrieved litigant moved the supreme court and asked “whether the exhortation made by high court in 1961 is not intended to apply to itself’’. A bench on August 6, 2001, laid down a deadline of six months for delivering a judgment by any court.

b_rakesh@dnaindia.net