The Delhi High Court has held that a complainant cannot compel an accused to undergo narcoanalysis after the accused has expressly refused consent.
The Court treated consent as a personal and non-derogable safeguard. Because the technique intrudes upon mental privacy and testimonial autonomy, an investigative preference or a complainant’s demand cannot replace the subject’s voluntary agreement.
The petition seeking the test was dismissed. Since a charge sheet had already been filed, however, the trial court remains free to evaluate the investigation and the complainant may pursue legally available requests for further or monitored investigation. The decision preserves investigative remedies while drawing a firm constitutional boundary around involuntary forensic techniques.
