CLATnetwork · Daily Drill
Polygraph & Narco Analysis
20 questions · 25 minutes · Your score will appear on the class leaderboard
📋 10 GK + 10 Legal Reasoning questions
⏱ 25 minute countdown timer
🏆 Live leaderboard after submission
⚠️ Once you start, you cannot pause
Please enter your name before starting.
CLATnetwork · Daily Drill
Polygraph & Narco Analysis Test
20 Questions · GK + Legal Reasoning · 25 Minutes
0 / 20
25:00
Section A — General Knowledge
Q1–Q10 | Straight GK · UPSC Style · Assertion-Reason
01
GK
Easy
Which Indian agency was directed by a court to conduct a polygraph test on the accused in the RG Kar Medical College case, bringing widespread public attention to the test?
The CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) was the agency that conducted the polygraph test on the accused in the RG Kar Medical College case (Kolkata, 2024). The case involved the rape and murder of a trainee doctor, and CBI sought court permission for the test.
02
GK
Easy
A polygraph machine measures physiological responses. Which of the following is NOT among the standard parameters recorded during a polygraph test?
Standard polygraph parameters are: Blood Pressure (BP), Pulse, Skin Conductivity (galvanic skin response), and Respiratory rate. EEG brain-wave measurement is associated with Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) or Brain Fingerprinting — a separate forensic technique.
03
GK
Easy
Narco analysis involves the injection of which drug to induce a hypnotic/sedated state?
Sodium Pentothal (also called Sodium Thiopental or "truth serum") is injected in narco analysis. It is a barbiturate that induces a hypnotic, sedated state in which the subject's critical thinking is suppressed, theoretically making lying difficult.
04
GK
Easy
Who is widely credited as the first person to use a scientific instrument for detecting deception, conducting the earliest known polygraph-type experiment in the 19th century?
Cesare Lombroso, an Italian criminologist, was the first to use a scientific instrument (a hydrosphygmograph) to measure blood pressure changes during questioning. This was the precursor to the modern polygraph. He only measured BP, unlike modern devices.
05
GK
Easy
The key principle behind polygraph testing is "consistency." What does this refer to in the context of the test?
Consistency in polygraph refers to the comparison of physiological readings across all responses. While a person is answering, their BP, pulse, and skin conductivity are recorded. A significant deviation from baseline on certain answers signals possible deception.
06
UPSC Style
Moderate
Consider the following statements regarding polygraph tests in India:
1. A polygraph test can be conducted by investigating agencies without any judicial oversight if the accused is a terror suspect.
2. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued guidelines requiring voluntary, informed, and recorded consent.
3. Statements made during narco analysis are directly admissible as confessions under the Indian Evidence Act.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
1. A polygraph test can be conducted by investigating agencies without any judicial oversight if the accused is a terror suspect.
2. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued guidelines requiring voluntary, informed, and recorded consent.
3. Statements made during narco analysis are directly admissible as confessions under the Indian Evidence Act.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Statement 1 is Wrong: No exception exists — even terror suspects require consent and a magistrate's oversight per NHRC guidelines. Statement 2 is Correct: NHRC guidelines mandate voluntary, informed, and recorded consent before a magistrate. Statement 3 is Wrong: The Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) held that narco analysis statements are NOT confessions — they are "statements to police" and cannot be admitted as confessions under S.25 of the Evidence Act.
07
UPSC Style
Moderate
Which of the following best describes the legal status of polygraph and narco analysis tests in India?
Per Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that the results of narco analysis/polygraph tests are NOT directly admissible in evidence. However, facts or physical evidence independently discovered because of voluntary revelations during such tests can be admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
08
UPSC Style
Moderate
Forcible narco analysis or polygraph testing without consent violates which fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
Article 20(3) provides that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court in Selvi's case held that compelled narco analysis violates this right. It also violates Article 21 (right to privacy and bodily integrity). However, the primary violation is Article 20(3) — the right against self-incrimination.
09
Assertion-Reason
Moderate
Assertion (A): A polygraph test is considered a softer alternative to torture as an investigative tool.
Reason (R): Unlike physical coercion, a polygraph relies on measuring involuntary physiological responses while the subject answers questions voluntarily, causing no bodily harm.
Choose the correct option:
Reason (R): Unlike physical coercion, a polygraph relies on measuring involuntary physiological responses while the subject answers questions voluntarily, causing no bodily harm.
Choose the correct option:
Both statements are true. The polygraph is described as a "softer alternative to torture" precisely because it is non-invasive — it measures physiological changes (BP, pulse, skin conductivity, respiration) without inflicting physical pain. R correctly explains why A is true.
10
Assertion-Reason
Hard
Assertion (A): Statements made under narco analysis are treated as "statements to police" and not confessions.
Reason (R): A confession, to be admissible, must be made voluntarily before a Magistrate; statements extracted under chemical sedation lack voluntariness and are made to police personnel, not to a Magistrate.
Choose the correct option:
Reason (R): A confession, to be admissible, must be made voluntarily before a Magistrate; statements extracted under chemical sedation lack voluntariness and are made to police personnel, not to a Magistrate.
Choose the correct option:
Both A and R are correct. Under the Indian Evidence Act, S.25 bars police confessions; S.164 requires a Magistrate for a valid confession. Narco statements fail both tests: they lack voluntariness and are not before a Magistrate. R correctly explains the legal reasoning behind A.
Section B — Legal Reasoning
Q11–Q20 | CLAT Passage · Legal A/R · Principle-Fact (AILET)
READ PASSAGE · Q11–Q15
In 2010, the Supreme Court of India, in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, delivered a landmark ruling on the admissibility of scientific investigative techniques. The Court held that compelling an individual to undergo narco analysis, polygraph testing, or Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling without their consent constitutes a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Court also invoked Article 21, observing that the right to privacy and mental integrity falls within its ambit.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had earlier issued guidelines stipulating that such tests could only be administered with: (1) voluntary consent, (2) informed consent — meaning the subject must be made aware of the consequences, (3) recorded consent before a Magistrate, and (4) clarity that any statement made would be treated as a statement to police, not as a confession. The Court endorsed these guidelines as a minimum safeguard.
However, the Court also clarified an important nuance: if, during the course of a voluntarily conducted narco analysis session, the subject leads investigators to physical evidence or discloses a fact that independently corroborates the prosecution's case, that fact — and the evidence discovered from it — can be used in court. This is permitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows admission of facts discovered from information given by an accused in police custody.
Critics of these tests argue that no technique is 100% accurate and that skilled liars may defeat the test, while highly anxious innocent individuals may produce false positives. Proponents, however, contend that polygraph and narco analysis serve as valuable investigative tools — especially for generating new leads — even if their direct evidentiary value is nil.
11
CLAT Passage
Moderate
Rajan is accused of murdering his business partner. During a voluntary narco analysis session — conducted with all NHRC safeguards — he reveals that he buried the murder weapon near a riverside. Police find the weapon exactly where he said. The prosecution wants to use this weapon as evidence. Based on the passage, which of the following is correct?
The passage explicitly states that facts and physical evidence independently discovered from a voluntary narco session can be admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the narco transcript itself is not a confession and is not directly admissible. Since Rajan consented and NHRC safeguards were met, the weapon qualifies — but the transcript does not.
12
CLAT Passage
Moderate
Seema is a suspect in a corporate fraud case. She agrees to a polygraph test but the investigating officer skips the step of recording her consent before a Magistrate, arguing it is a mere formality. During the test, Seema's physiological responses to questions about the fraud accounts are significantly elevated. The prosecution now seeks to use the polygraph report. What is the strongest legal challenge available to Seema?
Option C is partially right (results aren't directly admissible) but misses the bigger picture and is therefore not the strongest legal challenge. The strongest challenge is Option B: skipping recorded Magistrate consent violates NHRC guidelines endorsed by the Supreme Court. This procedural breach, combined with Article 20(3) and Article 21 protections, makes the entire process legally untenable — and could also taint any leads discovered.
13
CLAT Passage
High
In a kidnapping case, the police argue that narco analysis is urgently required to find the victim before it is too late, and the accused refuses to consent. The court is asked to order compulsory narco analysis, citing the victim's right to life under Article 21 as overriding the accused's Article 20(3) rights. How should the court rule, based on the legal framework in the passage?
This is a classic rights conflict question. The passage is clear: the Supreme Court in Selvi held that compulsion — regardless of urgency — violates Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the accused. The court cannot constitutionally compel a person to be a witness against themselves. Neither urgency nor the victim's rights create an exception. The correct answer is D. Option A is the "intuitive" trap — urgency doesn't override constitutional rights without a specific legislative provision.
14
CLAT Passage
High
During narco analysis, an accused person says: "I hid the gold bars in my cousin's house." Police search the house and find not the gold bars, but documents proving financial fraud. Can these documents be used in court?
Section 27 allows admission of facts "discovered in consequence of information" given by the accused. The gold bars were mentioned — those would qualify. The fraud documents are incidentally discovered — not directly the subject of the accused's information. Courts have generally required a direct nexus between the information given and the fact discovered. Option B captures this nuance best. Option C overstates — the documents aren't automatically inadmissible, but their admission under S.27 is contestable.
15
CLAT Passage
High
Priya is a witness (not an accused) in a murder trial. The police want to subject her to a polygraph test to verify her testimony. Based on the framework in the passage, which of the following is most accurate?
Option A and D tempt students who narrowly read Article 20(3). However, the passage cites both Article 20(3) and Article 21. Article 21's right to privacy and mental integrity applies to ALL persons — not just accused persons. The Supreme Court in Selvi confirmed this broader protection. Priya cannot be compelled even as a witness, because compulsion violates Article 21.
16
Legal A/R
Hard
Assertion (A): A narco analysis statement recorded by police cannot be treated as a confession even if it contains a clear acknowledgment of guilt.
Reason (R): Under the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25, and a valid confession requires that it be made voluntarily before a Magistrate under Section 164; narco statements satisfy neither condition.
Reason (R): Under the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25, and a valid confession requires that it be made voluntarily before a Magistrate under Section 164; narco statements satisfy neither condition.
Both A and R are correct, and R precisely explains the legal basis for A. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act bars confessions to police; Section 164 requires voluntariness and a Magistrate. Narco statements fail both requirements — they are chemically induced (lack voluntariness) and are recorded by police (not a Magistrate). Option D is the classic wrong answer that confuses factual guilt with legal admissibility.
17
Legal A/R
Hard
Assertion (A): Evidence discovered through compelled narco analysis cannot be used in court, even if it physically proves guilt.
Reason (R): Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is conditioned on the information being given voluntarily; if compulsion is used, the voluntariness element is absent and the discovered evidence is tainted.
Reason (R): Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is conditioned on the information being given voluntarily; if compulsion is used, the voluntariness element is absent and the discovered evidence is tainted.
This is a nuanced question. A is correct — compelled narco evidence is inadmissible. R's reasoning is partially correct but technically imprecise: Section 27 itself is silent on voluntariness; the bar comes from Article 20(3) and the constitutional exclusionary principle applied by courts. So R needs qualification. C is the most accurate answer. D is wrong — Indian law increasingly applies an exclusionary rule for constitutionally tainted evidence.
18
Principle-Fact
Moderate
Principle: No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (Article 20(3), Constitution of India). This protection extends to testimonial compulsion — i.e., compelling a person to provide information that may incriminate them.
Fact: Aryan is arrested on suspicion of kidnapping. During custody, the police, without obtaining consent, inject him with Sodium Pentothal and ask him questions. Under its influence, Aryan reveals the location of the victim. The victim is rescued.
Decision:
Fact: Aryan is arrested on suspicion of kidnapping. During custody, the police, without obtaining consent, inject him with Sodium Pentothal and ask him questions. Under its influence, Aryan reveals the location of the victim. The victim is rescued.
Decision:
The principle bars testimonial compulsion. The narco process here was compelled — Aryan gave no consent — violating Article 20(3). Therefore, his revelation is inadmissible as testimonial evidence. However, the victim's rescue is a real-world, lawful outcome — it cannot be "voided." Option C conflates legal admissibility with real-world events. Option B correctly distinguishes between the tainted testimony (inadmissible) and the independent event (rescue, which stands on its own).
19
Principle-Fact
High
Principle: NHRC guidelines require that any statement made during narco analysis or polygraph testing shall be treated as a statement to police, and NOT as a confession. A confession is admissible only when made voluntarily before a Magistrate.
Fact: During a voluntary narco analysis session (all NHRC safeguards followed), accused Meera says: "I killed him. The knife is under the floorboard in my kitchen." Police retrieve the knife, which bears Meera's fingerprints. The prosecution relies on both Meera's narco statement and the knife.
Decision:
Fact: During a voluntary narco analysis session (all NHRC safeguards followed), accused Meera says: "I killed him. The knife is under the floorboard in my kitchen." Police retrieve the knife, which bears Meera's fingerprints. The prosecution relies on both Meera's narco statement and the knife.
Decision:
Per the principle, the narco statement is not a confession regardless of content — it's a "statement to police." Hence Option B is wrong. The knife was discovered from Meera's voluntary disclosure — this qualifies under Section 27 (fact discovered from information given by accused in custody). The knife, combined with Meera's fingerprints, is independently admissible physical evidence. Option C is correct. Option D is wrong — voluntary narco analysis with NHRC safeguards doesn't taint physical evidence discovered from it.
20
Principle-Fact
High
Principle: The right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) protects against testimonial compulsion — being forced to provide incriminating information verbally or in writing. It does not extend to physical evidence such as blood samples, handwriting specimens, or voice samples, which may be compelled.
Fact: Vikram is accused of a financial scam. Police want (i) his voice sample to match with recorded phone calls, and (ii) want to conduct narco analysis to get him to disclose account numbers. Vikram refuses both. Police seek a court order to compel both.
Decision:
Fact: Vikram is accused of a financial scam. Police want (i) his voice sample to match with recorded phone calls, and (ii) want to conduct narco analysis to get him to disclose account numbers. Vikram refuses both. Police seek a court order to compel both.
Decision:
The principle distinguishes testimonial from physical compulsion. A voice sample is physical/identification evidence — it helps identify the accused, not make them confess. Courts (including the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP) have held voice samples can be compelled. Narco analysis forces verbal disclosure of information (account numbers) — this is classic testimonial compulsion, barred by Article 20(3). Option B correctly applies this distinction. Option D reverses the logic completely.
YOUR SCORE
—/20
Section A · GK
—
out of 10
Section B · Legal
—
out of 10
Correct
—
questions
Wrong
—
questions
Time Taken
—
out of 25:00
🏆 Class Leaderboard
Loading scores…
CLATnetwork · Daily Drill
Polygraph & Narco Analysis
20 questions · 25 minutes · Your score will appear on the class leaderboard
📋 10 GK + 10 Legal Reasoning questions
⏱ 25 minute countdown timer
🏆 Live leaderboard after submission
⚠️ Once you start, you cannot pause
Please enter your name before starting.
CLATnetwork · Daily Drill
Polygraph & Narco Analysis Test
20 Questions · GK + Legal Reasoning · 25 Minutes
0 / 20
25:00
Section A — General Knowledge
Q1–Q10 | Straight GK · UPSC Style · Assertion-Reason
01
GK
Easy
Which Indian agency was directed by a court to conduct a polygraph test on the accused in the RG Kar Medical College case, bringing widespread public attention to the test?
The CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) was the agency that conducted the polygraph test on the accused in the RG Kar Medical College case (Kolkata, 2024). The case involved the rape and murder of a trainee doctor, and CBI sought court permission for the test.
02
GK
Easy
A polygraph machine measures physiological responses. Which of the following is NOT among the standard parameters recorded during a polygraph test?
Standard polygraph parameters are: Blood Pressure (BP), Pulse, Skin Conductivity (galvanic skin response), and Respiratory rate. EEG brain-wave measurement is associated with Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) or Brain Fingerprinting — a separate forensic technique.
03
GK
Easy
Narco analysis involves the injection of which drug to induce a hypnotic/sedated state?
Sodium Pentothal (also called Sodium Thiopental or "truth serum") is injected in narco analysis. It is a barbiturate that induces a hypnotic, sedated state in which the subject's critical thinking is suppressed, theoretically making lying difficult.
04
GK
Easy
Who is widely credited as the first person to use a scientific instrument for detecting deception, conducting the earliest known polygraph-type experiment in the 19th century?
Cesare Lombroso, an Italian criminologist, was the first to use a scientific instrument (a hydrosphygmograph) to measure blood pressure changes during questioning. This was the precursor to the modern polygraph. He only measured BP, unlike modern devices.
05
GK
Easy
The key principle behind polygraph testing is "consistency." What does this refer to in the context of the test?
Consistency in polygraph refers to the comparison of physiological readings across all responses. While a person is answering, their BP, pulse, and skin conductivity are recorded. A significant deviation from baseline on certain answers signals possible deception.
06
UPSC Style
Moderate
Consider the following statements regarding polygraph tests in India:
1. A polygraph test can be conducted by investigating agencies without any judicial oversight if the accused is a terror suspect.
2. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued guidelines requiring voluntary, informed, and recorded consent.
3. Statements made during narco analysis are directly admissible as confessions under the Indian Evidence Act.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
1. A polygraph test can be conducted by investigating agencies without any judicial oversight if the accused is a terror suspect.
2. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued guidelines requiring voluntary, informed, and recorded consent.
3. Statements made during narco analysis are directly admissible as confessions under the Indian Evidence Act.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Statement 1 is Wrong: No exception exists — even terror suspects require consent and a magistrate's oversight per NHRC guidelines. Statement 2 is Correct: NHRC guidelines mandate voluntary, informed, and recorded consent before a magistrate. Statement 3 is Wrong: The Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) held that narco analysis statements are NOT confessions — they are "statements to police" and cannot be admitted as confessions under S.25 of the Evidence Act.
07
UPSC Style
Moderate
Which of the following best describes the legal status of polygraph and narco analysis tests in India?
Per Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that the results of narco analysis/polygraph tests are NOT directly admissible in evidence. However, facts or physical evidence independently discovered because of voluntary revelations during such tests can be admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
08
UPSC Style
Moderate
Forcible narco analysis or polygraph testing without consent violates which fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
Article 20(3) provides that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court in Selvi's case held that compelled narco analysis violates this right. It also violates Article 21 (right to privacy and bodily integrity). However, the primary violation is Article 20(3) — the right against self-incrimination.
09
Assertion-Reason
Moderate
Assertion (A): A polygraph test is considered a softer alternative to torture as an investigative tool.
Reason (R): Unlike physical coercion, a polygraph relies on measuring involuntary physiological responses while the subject answers questions voluntarily, causing no bodily harm.
Choose the correct option:
Reason (R): Unlike physical coercion, a polygraph relies on measuring involuntary physiological responses while the subject answers questions voluntarily, causing no bodily harm.
Choose the correct option:
Both statements are true. The polygraph is described as a "softer alternative to torture" precisely because it is non-invasive — it measures physiological changes (BP, pulse, skin conductivity, respiration) without inflicting physical pain. R correctly explains why A is true.
10
Assertion-Reason
Hard
Assertion (A): Statements made under narco analysis are treated as "statements to police" and not confessions.
Reason (R): A confession, to be admissible, must be made voluntarily before a Magistrate; statements extracted under chemical sedation lack voluntariness and are made to police personnel, not to a Magistrate.
Choose the correct option:
Reason (R): A confession, to be admissible, must be made voluntarily before a Magistrate; statements extracted under chemical sedation lack voluntariness and are made to police personnel, not to a Magistrate.
Choose the correct option:
Both A and R are correct. Under the Indian Evidence Act, S.25 bars police confessions; S.164 requires a Magistrate for a valid confession. Narco statements fail both tests: they lack voluntariness and are not before a Magistrate. R correctly explains the legal reasoning behind A.
Section B — Legal Reasoning
Q11–Q20 | CLAT Passage · Legal A/R · Principle-Fact (AILET)
READ PASSAGE · Q11–Q15
In 2010, the Supreme Court of India, in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, delivered a landmark ruling on the admissibility of scientific investigative techniques. The Court held that compelling an individual to undergo narco analysis, polygraph testing, or Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) profiling without their consent constitutes a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Court also invoked Article 21, observing that the right to privacy and mental integrity falls within its ambit.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had earlier issued guidelines stipulating that such tests could only be administered with: (1) voluntary consent, (2) informed consent — meaning the subject must be made aware of the consequences, (3) recorded consent before a Magistrate, and (4) clarity that any statement made would be treated as a statement to police, not as a confession. The Court endorsed these guidelines as a minimum safeguard.
However, the Court also clarified an important nuance: if, during the course of a voluntarily conducted narco analysis session, the subject leads investigators to physical evidence or discloses a fact that independently corroborates the prosecution's case, that fact — and the evidence discovered from it — can be used in court. This is permitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows admission of facts discovered from information given by an accused in police custody.
Critics of these tests argue that no technique is 100% accurate and that skilled liars may defeat the test, while highly anxious innocent individuals may produce false positives. Proponents, however, contend that polygraph and narco analysis serve as valuable investigative tools — especially for generating new leads — even if their direct evidentiary value is nil.
11
CLAT Passage
Moderate
Rajan is accused of murdering his business partner. During a voluntary narco analysis session — conducted with all NHRC safeguards — he reveals that he buried the murder weapon near a riverside. Police find the weapon exactly where he said. The prosecution wants to use this weapon as evidence. Based on the passage, which of the following is correct?
The passage explicitly states that facts and physical evidence independently discovered from a voluntary narco session can be admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the narco transcript itself is not a confession and is not directly admissible. Since Rajan consented and NHRC safeguards were met, the weapon qualifies — but the transcript does not.
12
CLAT Passage
Moderate
Seema is a suspect in a corporate fraud case. She agrees to a polygraph test but the investigating officer skips the step of recording her consent before a Magistrate, arguing it is a mere formality. During the test, Seema's physiological responses to questions about the fraud accounts are significantly elevated. The prosecution now seeks to use the polygraph report. What is the strongest legal challenge available to Seema?
Option C is partially right (results aren't directly admissible) but misses the bigger picture and is therefore not the strongest legal challenge. The strongest challenge is Option B: skipping recorded Magistrate consent violates NHRC guidelines endorsed by the Supreme Court. This procedural breach, combined with Article 20(3) and Article 21 protections, makes the entire process legally untenable — and could also taint any leads discovered.
13
CLAT Passage
High
In a kidnapping case, the police argue that narco analysis is urgently required to find the victim before it is too late, and the accused refuses to consent. The court is asked to order compulsory narco analysis, citing the victim's right to life under Article 21 as overriding the accused's Article 20(3) rights. How should the court rule, based on the legal framework in the passage?
This is a classic rights conflict question. The passage is clear: the Supreme Court in Selvi held that compulsion — regardless of urgency — violates Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the accused. The court cannot constitutionally compel a person to be a witness against themselves. Neither urgency nor the victim's rights create an exception. The correct answer is D. Option A is the "intuitive" trap — urgency doesn't override constitutional rights without a specific legislative provision.
14
CLAT Passage
High
During narco analysis, an accused person says: "I hid the gold bars in my cousin's house." Police search the house and find not the gold bars, but documents proving financial fraud. Can these documents be used in court?
Section 27 allows admission of facts "discovered in consequence of information" given by the accused. The gold bars were mentioned — those would qualify. The fraud documents are incidentally discovered — not directly the subject of the accused's information. Courts have generally required a direct nexus between the information given and the fact discovered. Option B captures this nuance best. Option C overstates — the documents aren't automatically inadmissible, but their admission under S.27 is contestable.
15
CLAT Passage
High
Priya is a witness (not an accused) in a murder trial. The police want to subject her to a polygraph test to verify her testimony. Based on the framework in the passage, which of the following is most accurate?
Option A and D tempt students who narrowly read Article 20(3). However, the passage cites both Article 20(3) and Article 21. Article 21's right to privacy and mental integrity applies to ALL persons — not just accused persons. The Supreme Court in Selvi confirmed this broader protection. Priya cannot be compelled even as a witness, because compulsion violates Article 21.
16
Legal A/R
Hard
Assertion (A): A narco analysis statement recorded by police cannot be treated as a confession even if it contains a clear acknowledgment of guilt.
Reason (R): Under the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25, and a valid confession requires that it be made voluntarily before a Magistrate under Section 164; narco statements satisfy neither condition.
Reason (R): Under the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25, and a valid confession requires that it be made voluntarily before a Magistrate under Section 164; narco statements satisfy neither condition.
Both A and R are correct, and R precisely explains the legal basis for A. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act bars confessions to police; Section 164 requires voluntariness and a Magistrate. Narco statements fail both requirements — they are chemically induced (lack voluntariness) and are recorded by police (not a Magistrate). Option D is the classic wrong answer that confuses factual guilt with legal admissibility.
17
Legal A/R
Hard
Assertion (A): Evidence discovered through compelled narco analysis cannot be used in court, even if it physically proves guilt.
Reason (R): Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is conditioned on the information being given voluntarily; if compulsion is used, the voluntariness element is absent and the discovered evidence is tainted.
Reason (R): Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is conditioned on the information being given voluntarily; if compulsion is used, the voluntariness element is absent and the discovered evidence is tainted.
This is a nuanced question. A is correct — compelled narco evidence is inadmissible. R's reasoning is partially correct but technically imprecise: Section 27 itself is silent on voluntariness; the bar comes from Article 20(3) and the constitutional exclusionary principle applied by courts. So R needs qualification. C is the most accurate answer. D is wrong — Indian law increasingly applies an exclusionary rule for constitutionally tainted evidence.
18
Principle-Fact
Moderate
Principle: No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (Article 20(3), Constitution of India). This protection extends to testimonial compulsion — i.e., compelling a person to provide information that may incriminate them.
Fact: Aryan is arrested on suspicion of kidnapping. During custody, the police, without obtaining consent, inject him with Sodium Pentothal and ask him questions. Under its influence, Aryan reveals the location of the victim. The victim is rescued.
Decision:
Fact: Aryan is arrested on suspicion of kidnapping. During custody, the police, without obtaining consent, inject him with Sodium Pentothal and ask him questions. Under its influence, Aryan reveals the location of the victim. The victim is rescued.
Decision:
The principle bars testimonial compulsion. The narco process here was compelled — Aryan gave no consent — violating Article 20(3). Therefore, his revelation is inadmissible as testimonial evidence. However, the victim's rescue is a real-world, lawful outcome — it cannot be "voided." Option C conflates legal admissibility with real-world events. Option B correctly distinguishes between the tainted testimony (inadmissible) and the independent event (rescue, which stands on its own).
19
Principle-Fact
High
Principle: NHRC guidelines require that any statement made during narco analysis or polygraph testing shall be treated as a statement to police, and NOT as a confession. A confession is admissible only when made voluntarily before a Magistrate.
Fact: During a voluntary narco analysis session (all NHRC safeguards followed), accused Meera says: "I killed him. The knife is under the floorboard in my kitchen." Police retrieve the knife, which bears Meera's fingerprints. The prosecution relies on both Meera's narco statement and the knife.
Decision:
Fact: During a voluntary narco analysis session (all NHRC safeguards followed), accused Meera says: "I killed him. The knife is under the floorboard in my kitchen." Police retrieve the knife, which bears Meera's fingerprints. The prosecution relies on both Meera's narco statement and the knife.
Decision:
Per the principle, the narco statement is not a confession regardless of content — it's a "statement to police." Hence Option B is wrong. The knife was discovered from Meera's voluntary disclosure — this qualifies under Section 27 (fact discovered from information given by accused in custody). The knife, combined with Meera's fingerprints, is independently admissible physical evidence. Option C is correct. Option D is wrong — voluntary narco analysis with NHRC safeguards doesn't taint physical evidence discovered from it.
20
Principle-Fact
High
Principle: The right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) protects against testimonial compulsion — being forced to provide incriminating information verbally or in writing. It does not extend to physical evidence such as blood samples, handwriting specimens, or voice samples, which may be compelled.
Fact: Vikram is accused of a financial scam. Police want (i) his voice sample to match with recorded phone calls, and (ii) want to conduct narco analysis to get him to disclose account numbers. Vikram refuses both. Police seek a court order to compel both.
Decision:
Fact: Vikram is accused of a financial scam. Police want (i) his voice sample to match with recorded phone calls, and (ii) want to conduct narco analysis to get him to disclose account numbers. Vikram refuses both. Police seek a court order to compel both.
Decision:
The principle distinguishes testimonial from physical compulsion. A voice sample is physical/identification evidence — it helps identify the accused, not make them confess. Courts (including the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP) have held voice samples can be compelled. Narco analysis forces verbal disclosure of information (account numbers) — this is classic testimonial compulsion, barred by Article 20(3). Option B correctly applies this distinction. Option D reverses the logic completely.
YOUR SCORE
—/20
Section A · GK
—
out of 10
Section B · Legal
—
out of 10
Correct
—
questions
Wrong
—
questions
Time Taken
—
out of 25:00
🏆 Class Leaderboard
Loading scores…