Polygraph test

With the consistent and constant advancements in science and technology, there has been a noticeable shift in the
way criminal investigations are conducted. The traditional methods of investigating a crime have given way to
scientific methods. Narco-analysis, brain mapping, polygraph, neuroimaging, and other techniques have altered the
landscape of criminal law.

The purpose of this study is to assess the evidentiary value of narco-analysis and brain mapping as diagnostic
procedures, as well as their legality in India. It also examines a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of India
debated its significance and issued instructions on the subject.

The way the police investigate a case or interrogate an accused has evolved over time, and new methods have
been adopted by the police. Crime is an example of a concept that has changed over time. The criminals gathered
expertise and began to adopt new methods of doing their activities. As a result, even the authorities must develop
new approaches to investigating and interrogating the crime. Scientific methods are one of the methods used by the
police while investigating and interrogating a case.

Narco-analysis has recently been a hot topic among the legal community, the media, and the general public. The
development of new investigative methods, such as narco-analysis tests, has resulted in the introduction of scientific
interrogation tools. With the recent advancement of technology in almost every aspect of life, criminal investigation
is no longer immune to its consequences. Narco-analysis is one of these scientific forms of investigation in which
the accused makes a statement that may be utilised as evidence.

The Evidence Act is absolutely silent on the use of scientific process in this manner. Such a procedure has been
condemned for violating the Constitution's foundations, but it has also been defended as necessary for evaluating
some complex situations. Is the Narco-analysis technique infringing on the freedom to self-incrimination protected
by Article 20 (3) of the Constitution?

It was recently in the news when it became the centre of a storm and caused a discussion when the media
portrayed the Unnao rape case in Uttar Pradesh. When the accused wanted a Narco test for justice and faith in the
criminal justice system, he was subjected to one.

In order to assist the police with their investigation and interrogation procedure, forensic science has various
departments. The lie-detector division is one such division. Polygraphy tests are the subject of this branch of
forensic science. This category can be considered a recent addition to the field of forensic science. It aids the police
in questioning a suspect or an accused person. In general, forensic science refers to the scientific reasoning utilised
by courts to decide a case.

Narco-analysis is a diagnostic and psychotherapeutic technique that uses psychotropic drugs, particularly
barbiturates, to induce a stupor in which mental elements with strong associated affects come to the surface, where
they can be exploited by the therapist. It is derived from the Greek word narkç (meaning "anaesthesia" or "torpor").
Horseley coined the phrase "narco-analysis." At the junction of law, medicine, and ethics, narco-analysis raises
various concerns.

The initial attempt to create a device that can detect lies was pretty basic. The initial equipment was simply designed
to detect variations in the person being questioned's blood pressure. Later on, the machine received modifications
or developments. John Reid, a scientist, updated the device and provided the technique for performing the test
effectively. The polygraphy machine became more versatile and reliable after subsequent advancements and
updates. When compared to other scientific procedures, polygraphy testing is currently more practical and accurate
in detecting lies.

Mechanism of Polygraphy Test

The polygraphy test, often known as the lie-detector test, is a type of lie-detector test. Polygraphy is a technique
used by cops to evaluate if someone is telling the truth or lying. In recent decades in India, this technology may
have been used in the interrogation process. This instrument's technique, however, has a long history. The
technique of one saying whether something is true or not dates back to ancient China. People in ancient China used
to force suspects to eat dry rice powder and chew it because they believed that when a person is afraid or stressed,
they don't generate saliva.

As a result, if the powder stayed dry, he or she is guilty. This method/belief of people may not be entirely
trustworthy. However, it is true that when a person lies, bodily changes such as an increase in blood pressure and a
few observable movements in the body occur. The scientist has created a device that uses this technique and
principles to observe changes in the human body. Polygraphy, or a lie detector, is the name of the instrument.

The initial attempt to create a device that can detect lies was pretty basic. The initial equipment was simply designed
to detect variations in the person being questioned's blood pressure. Later on, the machine received modifications
or developments. John Reid, a scientist, updated the device and provided the technique for performing the test
effectively. The polygraphy machine became more versatile and reliable after subsequent advancements and
updates. When compared to other scientific methodologies, polygraphy is currently more practical and accurate in
detecting lies.

The psychosomatic interaction is a psychological principle that the exam relies on. The principle is concerned with
tiny physical changes in the human body. Changes in respiration, such as heavy breathing, Galvanic skin
resistance, blood pressure or pulse rate, muscular pressure, finger pulse, and body temperature are all examples of
changes. When someone lies or makes a false statement, they are afraid of being detected, so they suppress their
feelings, resulting in mental turmoil. All of these reactions cause physical and psychological changes in the person.

The following is how the lie detector gadget is fitted to the suspect being questioned:

1. One pneumograph tube is worn around the subject's chest and the other around his belly to record
variations in his breathing patterns while he is being questioned.
2. His upper arm is fitted with a standard blood pressure cuff.
3. A small electric current is supplied through electrodes affixed to his fingers (index or ring finger) to measure
the galvanic skin reflex.
4. The chair he/she is seated in is used to measure his/her body motions and pressure. The chair is made in
this manner.

Constitutional & Legal Provisions on Narco-analysis in India

Narco-analysis tests, like confessions, are not legally valid because they are performed on a semi-conscious person
and are not admissible in court. However, after analysing the circumstances in which the test was taken, the court
may award limited admission. Article 20 (3) of the Constitution prohibits the use of narco-analysis, brain mapping,
and lie detector tests against the accused's will. Art. 20 of the Indian Constitution is the most important section
concerning criminal inquiry and trial (3).

It is about the right to remain silent in the face of self-incrimination. A key canon of Common law criminal
jurisprudence is the privilege against self-incrimination. "No person accused of any offence will be compelled to be a
witness against oneself," reads Art. 20(3), which enshrines this privilege. Many people believe that subjecting the
accused to the test, as has been done by Indian investigating authorities, is a flagrant breach of Article 20 (3) of the
Constitution.
The use of the Narco-Analysis Test raises a fundamental question about judicial matters as well as Human Rights.
The legality of using this technique as an investigative tool raises serious concerns about infringement on a person's
rights, freedoms, and freedom. In the case of State of Bombay v. Kathikalu[1], it was held that the accused must
be forced to give a statement that is likely to incriminate him. Compulsion is defined as the threat, beating, or
imprisonment of a person's wife, parent, or kid. As a result, where the accused gives a confession without being
coerced, paragraph 20(3) does not apply. As a result, the privilege against self-incrimination allows for the
protection of human privacy and the application of civilised principles in criminal justice.

The right to silence, often known as the right against forced self-incrimination, is protected under the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Constitution. The legislature has protected a citizen's right against self-
incrimination in the CrPC. According to Section 161 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, everyone "is required to
answer truthfully all inquiries, presented to him by a police officer, except than those whose responses would have a
tendency to expose that person to a criminal accusation, penalty, or forfeiture." Narco-analysis is believed to be
mental torture and consequently infringes on the right to life under Article 21, which deals with the right to privacy.

The right to silence has been provided to the accused as a result of the decision in Nandini Sathpathy v.
P.L.Dani[2] that no one can forcibly extract statements from the accused, who has the right to remain silent during
interrogation (investigation). The validity and legitimacy of the Right to Silence are nullified by the application of
these tests, which restores forcible interference into one's thinking. She asserted that Article 20(3) of the
Constitution and Section 161 (2) of the Cr. P.C. gave her the right to remain silent. Her appeals were upheld by the
Supreme Court.

Furthermore, tests such as Narco-analysis are not thought to be highly reliable. Truth serums do not induce truthful
replies, according to studies conducted by numerous medical societies in the United States, and participants in such
a state of trance under the truth serum may give inaccurate or misleading responses. The Supreme Court held
in M.P.Sharma v. Satish Chandra[3] that because the terms "to be a witness" and not "to appear as a witness"
were used in Article 20(3), the protection is extended to coerced testimony acquired outside the Courtroom.

The term Right to Privacy is a catch-all term that encompasses a wide range of rights that are acknowledged as
intrinsic concepts of ordered liberty. The right to privacy is a person's right to be left alone and to be free of
undesired publicity. 6 Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees citizens the right to life and liberty, which
includes the right to privacy.

Without his permission, no one can write anything on the above topics, whether true or false, laudatory or critical. If
this is done, it will be infringing on the person's right to privacy and will be subject to a civil case for damages. The
preservation of life, liberty, and freedom is enshrined in the Indian constitution.

If this is done, it will be infringing on the person's right to privacy and will be subject to a civil case for damages. The
preservation of life, liberty, and freedom has been interpreted throughout the Indian constitution, and Articles 14, 19,
and 21 are the best examples of any constitution against the right to privacy.

Practise of Narco Analysis in India

Narco-analysis is still used in a few democratic countries, most notably India. In most developed and democratic
countries, narco-analysis is not openly permitted for investigative purposes. An anesthesiologist, a psychiatrist, a
clinical/forensic psychologist, an audio-videographer, and accompanying nursing staff perform the Narco-analysis
test in India.

The forensic psychologist draughts a report on the revelations, which is accompanied by an audio-video compact
disc. If necessary, the strength of the revelations is further validated by administering polygraph and brain mapping
tests to the person.

Narco-analysis is increasingly being used in investigations, court hearings, and laboratories in India these days. In
the matter of State of Bombay v. KathiKalu Oghad[4], an eleven-judge bench issued a decision. where it was
stated that self-incrimination refers to transmitting information based on a person's personal knowledge and does
not refer to the mechanical process of producing documents in court. In the case of Ram Jawayya Kupar[5], it was
held that executive power cannot infringe on constitutional rights and liberty, or any other rights of a person, and that
an infringement on basic rights must be thrown down in the absence of any law.

Admissibility of Narco Analysis in Court

As previously said, the polygraphy test is one of the new methods used by the police to facilitate the investigation
process. Polygraphy tests are classified under Deception Detection Tests. New methods such as narco-analysis
and brain-mapping are included in the DDT. These modern approaches are less aggressive than older methods
such as third-degree questioning; the polygraphy test, for example, causes no harm to the accused and aids in the
inquiry more correctly.
However, these modern methods of investigation or interrogation (especially polygraphy tests) typically follow the
process of gathering information from the accused, which may be used against hWhile Narco-analysis provided a
wealth of information, it also raised numerous problems, as several critics expressed grave reservations about the
use of serum on the witness to extract truth. Narco-analysis is seen as a tool or help for gathering and substantiating
evidence. However, questions have been raised as to whether it constituted to judicial testimonial compulsion and a
breach of human rights, individual liberty, and freedom.

Lawyers are split on whether the results of Narco-analysis and P300 tests are admissible in court as evidence,
claiming that confessions made by a semiconscious person are not. A Narco-analysis test report has some validity,
but it is not completely admissible in court, which examines the circumstances of its acquisition while determining
admissibility. The results of such tests can be used to get admissible evidence, be combined with other evidence, or
be used to back up other evidence. However, if the results of this test aren't accepted in court, they can't be used to
back up any other evidence gathered during a normal investigation.

Narco-analysis was first utilised in India in the Godhra atrocity case in 2002. It was also in the news after the
notorious Arun Bhatt kidnapping case in Gujarat, in which the accused refused to undergo narco-analysis before the
National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court of India. When Abdul Karim Telgi was put to the test in
December 2003 as part of the Telgi stamp paper hoax, it was once again in the news. Though an enormous amount
of material was obtained in the instance of Telgi, questions were raised concerning its value as evidence. The
infamous Nithari village (Noida) serial killings thrust narco-analysis into the spotlight.

In general, the accused is disclosing material that could be used against him in a court of law. A person cannot be a
witness against oneself, as stated in Article 21(3) of the Indian Constitution. This law is broken by the findings of the
polygraphy exam. As a result, this cannot be used as evidence in a court of law.

The national human rights commission has issued rules for administering the polygraphy exam without breaching
Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which states that personal liberty and the right to privacy are protected under
the law. Prior to these standards, polygraphy tests were not administered properly, such as when the accused was
forced to take the test in fear and under duress, and the test findings may not have been reliable or real, and the
process also violated an individual's personal liberty. However, even after the rules were established, there have
been instances where the testing agencies followed the NHRC's guidelines.

Furthermore, the scientific community believes that the polygraphy test may be inaccurate in a few instances.
Because the accused/subject being questioned may not be guilty, yet he may panic as a result of the interrogation
and atmosphere, or for any other reason, causing the reading on the chart to be erroneous. As a result, an innocent
person who has done no crime gets sentenced to prison.

Lawyers are split on whether the results of Narco-analysis and P300 tests are admissible in court as evidence,
claiming that confessions made by a semiconscious person are not. A Narco-analysis test report has some validity,
but it is not completely admissible in court, which examines the circumstances of its acquisition while determining
admissibility. The results of such tests can be used to get admissible evidence, be combined with other evidence, or
be used to back up other evidence. However, if the results of this test aren't accepted in court, they can't be used to
back up any other evidence gathered during a normal investigation.

State of Karnataka v. Smt. Selvi [6]

"The results of polygraphs and other lie-detection tests are testimonial because the tests are essentially inductive
evidence of the defendant's epistemic state, whether they need a voluntary response or not." They are pieces of
evidence that purport to tell us either:

1. whether we may or cannot trust the defendant's assertions for which he has claimed authority, or
2. what propositions the defendant would claim authority for and invite reliance on if he testified truthfully.
As a result, a polygraphy test cannot be used as evidence. However, the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, Sections 45
and 45A, provide that Which states that the court can seek an expert's opinion in any field relevant to the issue.
Things like foreign law, science, art, handwriting identification, and finger impressions are examples of areas where
the judge has little understanding.

Then getting an expert's advice will assist you move on with the lawsuit. Although a polygraphy test cannot be used
as evidence, it can be used as an expert opinion under Section 45A of the Evidence Act. In addition, the polygraphy
test can assist police officers in moving the case forward.

Right to Self-Incrimination- Is it against Public Interest

Another point of view on the legality of the Narco-analysis test is that it is utilised as a tool for gathering evidence
and aiding in investigations, and so does not constitute testimonial compulsion. As a result, it does not violate the
constitutional rule prohibiting self-incrimination. Supporters of the Narco-analysis test believe that it is particularly
effective when it is necessary to elicit required information in order to avoid terrorist offences.

However, its implementation must be rigorously evaluated so that it can be replaced by current traditional
interrogation methods that have brought shame, ignominy, and dishonour to police, eroding the criminal justice
system's credibility. Narco-analysis has the potential to become a viable alternative to brutal third-degree
procedures. However, care must be taken to ensure that the method is not misapplied or exploited by the
investigating officer, and it should be paired with corroborative evidence.

The Supreme Court has ruled in Selvi v. State of Karnataka[7] that using narcotics analysis, brain mapping, and
polygraph testing on accused, suspects, and witnesses without their agreement is unconstitutional and a breach of
their right to privacy.

In a 251-page decision, a three-judge panel comprised of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justices R.V.
Raveendran, and J.M. Panchal said:
"We believe that no one should be forced to use any of the procedures in question, whether in the context of
criminal investigations or otherwise." This would be an unjustified infringement on personal liberty."

According to the judges:

"The mandatory use of the contested methodologies infringes on the right against self-incrimination." If the test
findings were obtained through coercion, they cannot be entered into evidence. Article 20 (3) of the Constitution [No
person accused of any crime shall be compelled to be a witness against oneself] safeguards an individual's right to
speak or keep silent, regardless of whether the later testimony is incriminatory or exculpatory."

The Bench went on to say:

"Article 20 (3) is intended to prevent the coercive transmission of intimate knowledge pertinent to the facts at hand.
The results of each of the challenged tests have a testimonial quality to them and cannot be classified as material
evidence."

"It is our considered conclusion that involuntary exposure to the accused practises violates the prescribed
boundaries of privacy," the CJI said.
The Court decided that requiring the use of these procedures would be a violation of Article 20.(3). Even if the
subject had given consent to conduct any of these tests, the results could not be admissible as evidence on their
own because "the subject does not exercise conscious control over the replies during the administration of the test."
Any information or material uncovered later with the use of voluntary administered test results, on the other hand,
can be allowed.

Legal Requirement
The National Human Rights Commission provided instructions regarding the administration of polygraph tests to
suspects in letter number. 117/8/97–8 dated 11/01/2000. The following criteria are intended to ensure that the
polygraphy test is used fairly and without violating a subject's human rights.

1. The subject, i.e., the accused, should provide his or her agreement to the Lie Detector/Polygraphy Test. The
subject should be given the option of taking a polygraphy exam or not.
2. When a subject agrees to a test and provides his agreement to have a Lie Detector/Polygraphy Test
performed on him, he should be aware of the test and its legal ramifications. The police and his lawyer
should provide him with the necessary information regarding the exam.
 3. The subject's assent must be recorded in front of a Judicial Magistrate.
4. The police must demonstrate the court that the accused agreed to the polygraphy test when the findings are
presented to the Magistrate during the hearing. And the lawyer is the one who presents these papers to the
judge.
5. The accused who has been questioned should also be aware of the fact that the words he says during the
polygraphy test are only comments to the police, not confessions.
6. The judge would evaluate the circumstances such as how long the prisoner has been detained and how the
interrogation was performed while considering a polygraphy test.

The National Human Rights Commission issued these rules in response to a petition filed by Shri Indra P. Choudhry
in 1997. The petitioner was apprehended by police and subjected to a polygraphy test after being disturbed by their
treatment. He gave his assent to the polygraphy test, and he was not in his right mind when he was questioned.

Taking all of this into account, the commission devised these guidelines for a more efficient administration of the
test. Because this is a psychological test, it will focus on human behaviour. If the test isn't done correctly, the results
will be inaccurate and can be used against the accused in an unfair way.

Criticism
Narco-analysis has been chastised for not being 100 percent correct. Certain subjects were discovered to have
made completely fraudulent statements. It is frequently ineffectual in obtaining the truth, hence it should not be used
to compare previous statements made to the police prior to the use of drugs. It has been discovered that a person
who has given incorrect information has done so even after the medicine has been administered. It won't help you if
you're dealing with a liar or someone who is evasive and untrustworthy. 9 It is quite difficult to provide an
appropriate medicine dosage for a certain individual.

The drug dose will vary depending on the subject's willpower, mental attitude, and body. Injection is not required for
a successful Narco-analysis test. A knowledgeable and skilled interviewer who is trained in posing recent and
successful questions is necessary for its success. The narco-analysis test restores memories that the suspect had
forgotten. If the test is used to obtain confessions for crimes, the outcome may be suspect. Suspects of crimes may
omit information or give a persistently false version of the incident while under the influence of drugs. 10 As a tool
for criminal inquiry, narco-analysis is not suggested.

Way Forward
Due to their lack of scientific verification and reliability, these procedures cannot be utilised as incriminating
evidence or confessions. They can, however, be utilised as investigative tools to help solve challenging situations.
The government should encourage the use of scientific approaches in otherwise time-consuming investigations and
trials, but it should also establish strong guidelines for their proper and consensual application.

Conclusion
Individual liberty and freedom are valued in today's criminal justice system, and in this environment, offenders are
unable to prevent safe passage due to flaws in the system that result in dilution of evidence. The likelihood of justice
has reduced since the Apex court overturned the legitimacy of the test and admissibility of Narco-analysis, taking
into account the conditions under which it was obtained. It is proposed that making the administration of a narco-
analysis test mandatory for the accused/witness in serious crimes could open the way for improving the quality of
criminal justice by strengthening the evidence system.

This is a bold step. The criminal justice system will be transformed as a result of this action. However, when the
accused person demands justice, the validity of the Narco-analysis test is called into question. When all other
avenues of investigation fail, the Narco test can be deemed unethical. Every individual is presumed innocent until
proven guilty, and every criminal inquiry should follow the same principle.

The narco-analysis exam, brain mapping, and polygraph tests are all quite valuable in the criminal investigative
process. Despite the fact that the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 is silent on the use of these procedures, the
constitutional courts have addressed the question of whether or not such methods should be used in a number of
cases. The question of whether or not these methods should be allowed to be employed in investigations and
interrogations is still being disputed by jurists, academics, and ordinary people alike.

In high-profile cases such as the Aarushi Talwar murder case, the Nithari deaths case, the Telgi scandal, and the
Mumbai Bomb Blasts case, the narco-analysis approach has proven to be extremely useful and successful. The
Constitution, as well as other special and municipal laws, limit the powers of the police authorities and operate as a
barrier to their exercise.

Though the Supreme Court clarified when these procedures can be used and when they cannot by its landmark
decision in Smt.Selvi, authorities should reconsider their employment of these scientific methods of investigation.
The repercussions of the repercussions of the revocation of the revocation. Experts' reports of side effects should
not prevent additional research and controlled trials of the medications in question. The standards have the potential
to ensure that justice is served fairly and promptly.

When a person lies, a polygraphy exam is used to measure the psychological and physical changes in his body.
Even though it detects lies accurately, it breaches laws such as personal liberty and cannot be used as evidence in
a court of law. You can't be your own witness, after all. Furthermore, with a little skill, the polygraphy test can be
easily fooled. Polygraphy is of no utility if the accused is a skilled liar with high emotional control. Polygraphy results,
on the other hand, can be used by the court as evidence. The results can potentially be used by the police to further
their investigation into the matter.

References:

1. https://legaldesire.com/evidentiary-value-of-narco-analysis-and-brain-mapping-in-india-vis-a-vis-smt-selvi-
ors-v-state-of-karnataka-2010/
2. https://madhavuniversity.edu.in/nacro-analysis-test.html

Mudra Pradesh is located on the eastern coast of Indiana and is one of the most prosperous States of the
Republic of Indiana (Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Indiana’). It has the world’s largest reserves of some of the
rarest metals and minerals. Mudra Pradesh is home to some of the busiest ports in the world, which are
being exclusively used by several multinational companies for export and import, in and out of Indiana. A
large number of Industries have come up across Mudra Pradesh which are manufacturing products ranging
from pin to electronic cars. Mudra Pradesh is often referred to as ‘Shenzhen of Indiana’. These industries
employ millions of people from within and outside the State. Mudra Pradesh is having the highest per
capita income among all the States in Indiana for the past twelve years. Prachinsthan, another State of
Indiana, shares a 248 Kms long border with Mudra Pradesh. Prachinsthan has a glorious past and the ruins
of the ancient-most civilizations in the world were discovered at as many as twelve
locations in the State. Prachinsthan is a land-locked State and the economy is mostly agrarian. For the past
several decades, Prachinsthan has been hit by drought and famine, year after year, which has resulted in
poor economic and social conditions. Moreover, Prachinsthan has the highest population
density per square acre in the world. Prachinsthan has the highest number of reported murder and robbery
cases in the country. In popular print and electronic media, Prachinsthan is often referred to as the ‘Crime
Capital of the Country.' The lack of opportunities within Prachinsthan has forced its
residents to migrate to other States for employment. Several residents of Prachinsthan have moved to
Mudra Pradesh.

In 2010, assembly elections were held in both Prachinsthan and Mudra Pradesh. The Labour Party attained a
majority and formed a government in both States. One of the pre-poll promises of the Labour Party
was to provide social security and healthcare facilities to migrant workers in Mudra Pradesh. Therefore,
after forming the government, several schemes and benefits were doled out to migrant workers in Mudra
Pradesh. Encouraged by favourable political conditions as well as in hope of getting benefits from several
social schemes, a large number of people migrated from Prachinsthan to Mudra Pradesh. This sudden mass
migration was not appreciated by the original residents of Mudra Pradesh. Mr Subra,
Leader of Opposition in the assembly of Mudra Pradesh, started a Statewide agitation against the migration
of people from Prachinsthan. In a press conference, Mr Subra said “These Prachinsthanis come here and
become a burden on our finances. Most of these outsiders don’t work at all but are
always first in the queue to receive benefits which are given by our tax money and at our cost!”.
Gazing the mood of resentment among the majority of voters in Mudra Pradesh, the ruling Labour Party
Government tried to achieve a balance in order to please its voter base in both States. After several rounds
of deliberations, the Government of Mudra Pradesh engaged Infovio Ogr, a Russian based Data Analytics
Firm of international repute, to build and develop an Artificial Intelligence (AI) based platform to decide the
eligibility and extent of benefits to be provided to migrant workers in Mudra Pradesh. It was decided that
the said platform must analyse data including service provided by a migrant worker to any public or private
enterprise in Mudra Pradesh, caste category, financial background, medical history,
criminal history etc. to determine whether and to what extent social and medical benefits must be extended
to such a migrant worker. Therefore, an AI platform called ‘Pehchaan’ was developed by Infovio. Initially,
it was restricted to only migrant workers but due to its accuracy and efficacy,
Pehchaan was extended to all social and medical benefits schemes of the State meant for original residents
of Mudra Pradesh as well.
Over time, many changes were made to the software and database of Pehachaan. More and more data was
made available to Infovio for better accuracy including access to records of mobile phones, social
networking sites etc. Necessary amendments were made to existing legislations as well as certain new
legislations were passed by the Mudra Pradesh assembly to make sharing of public and personal data with
Pehchaan mandatory. These legislations extended to government agencies as well as private enterprises. In
2015, the Labour Party lost assembly elections in Mudra Pradesh but managed to retain a majority in
Prachinsthan. The Mudra Morcha Party led by Mr Subra came to power in Mudra Pradesh. After taking oath
as Chief Minister, Mr Subra started reviewing all the decisions made by earlier Labour Party Government
While reviewing the Pehachaan project, Mr Subra held a meeting with Mr Valanitesh, founder of Infovio
Ogr. During the said meeting, Mr Valanitesh gave a presentation about the capabilities of Pehchaan and its
possible use in a plethora of other government functions like in the criminal justice system. As per the
presentation, Pehachaan was said to be capable of profiling each and every registered citizen and assisting
Police in the investigation of any crime, in as much as, by using AI and analysing its database it can point
out the offender of any crime within 6 hours.
Testing of the advanced Pehchan platform was carried out for more than 2 years which gave 100% positive
results. In all the test cases, the offender pointed out by Pehchan turned out to be actual culprits and were
eventually convicted by competent criminal Courts. Consequently, Mudra Pradesh Assembly passed the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2018 on 15.10.2018 whereby Sections, 173 and 293 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 were amended and the following sub-sections
were added:

“173. Sub-section (9) - It is mandatory for the police officer investigating the case to furnish/upload all
relevant information about the case to/on the Pehchaan AI Platform and seek a report.
Sub-Sec. (10) - The report so obtained, as referred in sub-section 9, shall be necessary used to identify the
offender and shall form part of the police report.”
“293. Sub-section (5) - Report of Pehchaan AI Platform may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial o
other proceeding under this code: Provided that when the question is whether a person has committed
any offence and it is shown that he is guilty of committing the offence as per Report of Pehchaan AI is
Platform, it may be presumed, unless the contrary sshown, that such person had committed such offence.
Thereafter, Police across Mudra Pradesh started solely relying on Pehchaan AI Platform to investigate
criminal cases and identify and prosecute offenders. Even, Trial Courts in Mudra Pradesh started convicting
accused persons after considering the report of Pehchaan AI Platform in view of the presumption imposed
by the proviso to Section 293(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 (as amended). This resulted in
speedy investigation and trial of criminal cases in Mudra Pradesh which was
appreciated by jurists and experts across the globe. A big ceremony was organised by the Government of
Mudra Pradesh to celebrate one year anniversary of the implementation of the Pehchaan AI
Platform in criminal cases. On the same day of anniversary celebrations, Rameshwar Foundation, a labour
rights NGO based in Prachinsthan, released a report titled “Pehchaan: Identify with Regional
Discrimination”.
As per the report, migrant workers from Prachinsthan have been convicted in 987 out of 1234 criminal cases
disposed of in Mudra Pradesh in past year.
The report suggested that the Social Profiling carried out by the AI Platform is discriminatory, in as much
as, in one of the cases the AI platform accused a migrant worker from Prachinsthan even when he had
passed away just two days prior to the occurrence.

Soon this report became a piece of national news and was widely publicized and debated in the media. Mr
Valanitesh, the founder of Infovio Ogr, issued a statement: “… No Technology is perfect. There may be one
or two aberrations here and there but in the end, the Learned Court is there to
verify the report. On the whole, Pehchaan is next to perfect and 99.99%
accurate. The question is how many convictions have been overturned in
appeal? None ”.
However, no statement was issued by the Government of Mudra Pradesh. Most of the migrant workers
started agitating against Pehchaan. Some protests turned violent and a curfew had to be imposed in some
parts of Mudra Pradesh. Some violent incidents were reported near the border of Mudra Pradesh and
Prachinsthan as well. The Labour Party government in Prachinsthan was also facing the wrath of family
members of migrant workers who accused it of sitting tight-lipped over the matter.
Media reports suggested that the Labour Party may soon lose its majority in Prachinsthan Assembly.
The government of Prachinsthan filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of Indiana
before the Supreme Court of Indiana challenging the validity and vires of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Mudra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 as well as the entire Pehachaan project. In
the said original suit, a Notice was issued to the State of Mudra Pradesh. Mr Rohalan, Advocate General of
Mudra Pradesh, while talking to media persons said “Labour Party is trying to politicize the issue. The
original suit filed by Prachinsthan is not maintainable. You as a State cannot question
legislation duly passed by another State”. In view of the widespread violence, Supreme Court decided to
hear the matter on an urgent basis and decided to consider preliminary objection at
the time of the final hearing itself.
Whether the original suit filed by the State of Prachinsthan is maintainable under Article 131 of the
Constitution of Indiana? Whether Code of Criminal Procedure (Mudra Pradesh Amendment) Act,
2018 is ultra vires of the Constitution of Indiana? Whether Pehchaan Project can be used/adopted to grant of
Social Welfare Schemes to citizens?
The following issues were framed by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court gave the final opportunity to
both the State of Prachinsthan (Plaintiffs) and the State of Mudra Pradesh (Defendants) to
complete their pleadings and directed them to come prepared for the final hearing on the next date.
Note: The laws of the Republic of Indiana are in pari materia with the laws
of India