Page 40 - Forensic News Journal Jan Feb 2018

Constitutional Validity of the Polygraph Test

lents in the Magna Carta, tection of Article 20 (3) petitioners are sought to

the Talmud and the law operates only in the court- be used as legal evidence.
of almost every civilized room and not in the police It is unlikely that such rea-
society. The Bombay station had earlier been soning would be accepted

High Court had to de- rejected in M.P.Sharma’s by anyone who values
cide whether forcing the case by a very strong con- his personal liberty. On

petitioners to undergo stitutional bench of eight the basis of above argu-
these tests would violate Supreme Court judges and ments we can understand
their right to silence and again thereafter in Kathi that synonym of Article

compel them to furnish Kalu Oghad’s case by a 20(3). The question arises
evidence against them- constitutional bench of here that why police are

selves. While rejecting 11 supreme court judges. blamed therefore not
the petitioner’s claims Justice palshikar held that reaching or helping in
and allowing the police compelling a person to justice. If they can’t get

to subject people to these undergo the test would freedom to get the truth,
tests, the judgment makes not violate the rights, as then it will be tougher to

certain far reaching pro- the forcible extraction of get justice. There should
nouncements which it is information simply did be personal liberty to ev-
respectfully submitted, are not necessarily mean that ery individual but when

legally wrong, contrary the information would be any person comes into the
to authority and logically incriminating. frame of suspect the po-

unconvincing. lice has every right to go
According to the learned into it and search for the
During the judgment, Jus- judge, whether the ex- truth. Today the gravity

tice Palshikar for himself tracted information was of crime, act to perform
and Justice Kakade drew incriminating could only crimes has been changed

a distinction between a be ascertained. If it was so it is important that
“statement” (made before incriminating, it was not scientific evidence like
a police officer) and “tes- admissible as evidence in lie detector test should be

timony” (made under oath a court of law. He there- used.
in court). He held that the fore held that the petitions

right against self-incrim- were premature, meaning For the law against com-
ination applies only to thereby that they should pelled self-incrimination
court proceedings and not be filed only after the to have any substance,

to police interrogations. incriminating statements it must apply before the
The claim that the pro- forcibly extracted from the person is compelled to

40