J&K Court Turns Down NIA Plea For Polygraph, Narco Analysis Of Pahalgam Attack Accused

NIA Court

A special court has dismissed the National Investigation Agency’s request to conduct polygraph and narco analysis tests on 2 accused in the Pahalgam terror attack, holding that such scientific techniques would violate their constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Background

The terror attack occurred on April 22 in the scenic Baisaran valley of Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam, where terrorists selectively targeted tourists based on their religious identity. The attack resulted in 26 deaths, including 25 tourists from different states and a local resident, Syed Adil Shah, who died trying to disarm one of the attackers.

The NIA took over the investigation five days later and arrested Bashir Ahmad Jothatd and Parvaiz Ahmed on June 26. The agency alleged that the 2 men provided shelter, food, and logistical support to 3 armed terrorists at a seasonal hut in Hill Park, aiding them prior to the attack. Both were booked under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and further investigations are ongoing.

NIA’s Plea & Accused’s Contradiction

The NIA approached the court seeking permission to administer polygraph and narco analysis tests, claiming the accused had consented voluntarily to the procedures to prove their innocence. However, when produced in court, the accused refuted the claim.

The court’s order recorded, “Today, both the accused persons have been produced…Both the accused persons have submitted in open court that they are not willing to undergo polygraph or narco analysis test.”

The Deputy Legal Aid Defence Counsel also challenged the NIA’s plea, arguing that the agency failed to record any voluntary consent while the accused were in custody. “No voluntary consent statement of the accused in the custody of prisoners was taken by the agency,” the defence pointed out.

Violation Of Constitutional Rights

The court emphasized that involuntary administration of such tests would infringe upon the accused’s right against self-incrimination, which is protected by the Constitution. It cited a Karnataka High Court judgment and National Human Rights Commission guidelines, which stipulate that consent must be recorded before a judicial magistrate and that tests must be conducted by independent medical agencies in the presence of lawyers.

Expert Guidelines On Scientific Tests

The NHRC guidelines recommend that lie detector tests be administered only after obtaining written consent from the accused, ensuring that the process is transparent and free from coercion. The court held that such safeguards were not followed in this case, reinforcing the accused’s right to refuse the tests.