LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 810Decided 9 Jun 2025
Crl.A. No.-002901-002901 - 2025 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5392/2024)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Background

The appellant's wife went missing during a bus journey to Ayodhya in August 2022, and an FIR was registered against him and his family alleging dowry harassment and involvement in her disappearance, based on a complaint by her sister. Co-accused reportedly made confessional statements that the missing woman had been thrown into the Saryu river, and the appellant's bail plea was rejected by the trial court. While the appellant sought regular bail before the Patna High Court, that Court, in an interim order, accepted the investigating officer's proposal to subject all accused persons and witnesses to a narco-analysis test. The appellant challenged this, relying on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Selvi v. State of Karnataka that forcible narco-analysis testing violates Article 21.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order permitting narco-analysis testing of the accused (and others) without their free consent could not be sustained, reaffirming the constitutional position laid down in Selvi v. State of Karnataka that involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph, or brain-mapping tests violates Articles 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) and 21 (personal liberty). The Court clarified that such tests may only be conducted with the free, informed and voluntary consent of the subject, recorded before a Judicial Magistrate with access to legal representation, and reiterated the detailed safeguards laid down in Selvi (based on NHRC guidelines) that must be strictly followed for any voluntary test. Since the impugned order did not reflect any such safeguards, it was set aside, and the appellant's pending bail application was left to be decided independently in accordance with law.

Lesson Learnt

No investigating agency or court can compel a person, whether accused or witness, to undergo a narco-analysis or similar test without their free and informed consent; any such test, even if agreed to, must follow strict procedural safeguards including consent recorded before a Magistrate and access to a lawyer.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case