I. The Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))
Text of Article 20(3): “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
This right ensures:
Protection from coerced confessions.
The voluntariness of any statement made by the accused.
Presumption of innocence and right to silence.
II. Narco-Analysis and Polygraph Tests
Narco-Analysis:
The subject is injected with drugs (like sodium pentothal) that lower inhibitions and make them more likely to reveal information.
Polygraph Tests (Lie Detector Tests):
Measure physiological responses like pulse, blood pressure, and breathing to determine truthfulness.
Brain Mapping (P300 tests):
Measures brain waves to detect recognition of certain stimuli (images, words).
These techniques are invasive, often used without full consent, and can bypass conscious control — thus posing serious ethical and legal concerns.

III. Judicial Standpoint:
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Landmark Judgment

The Supreme Court held that:
Narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping without free and informed consent violate Article 20(3) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty).
Even if consent is obtained, the results cannot be used as evidence in a trial unless the subject volunteers the information in a legally admissible manner.
These techniques compromise the mental privacy and dignity of individuals.
V. International Perspective:
The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also recognizes the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself.
Many legal systems view forced narco/polygraph tests as violations of due process and human rights.
Conclusion: Yes, there is a clear constitutional conflict between the right against self-incrimination and the use of narco-analysis and polygraph tests. The Supreme Court in Selvi's case strongly reinforced the primacy of individual rights, mental autonomy, and procedural fairness, ruling that involuntary use of such tests is unconstitutional and inadmissible in court.

Yes, there is a clear conflict between the right against self-incrimination and the use of narco-analysis and polygraph tests under Indian constitutional law. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India guarantees that "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," which safeguards an individual from being forced to provide testimony or evidence that may be self-incriminating.

Narco-analysis, polygraph (lie detector), and brain-mapping tests involve extracting information directly from the subject’s mind, often without their conscious control. These techniques are intrusive and bypass the voluntary cooperation of the accused, thereby violating the principle that an accused must be presumed innocent and should not be coerced into aiding the prosecution.

In the landmark judgment of Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping violates Article 20(3) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty and privacy). The Court ruled that such techniques cannot be conducted without the informed consent of the person and even if consented to, the results are not admissible as substantive evidence in court, though they may be used for investigative leads.

Hence, while these techniques may aid investigation, they are constitutionally impermissible if conducted without consent, and their use raises serious concerns about the erosion of fundamental rights. The conflict lies in balancing effective law enforcement with the individual’s right to a fair trial and protection from coercive investigation methods.

Yes, there is a conflict. In India, the Supreme Court has ruled that narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and other similar techniques, when administered involuntarily, violate the right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution) and other fundamental rights. These tests, if conducted without consent, are considered a form of coercion and thus inadmissible as evidence.