What’s in today’s article?

• Background
• What are Deception Detection Tests (DDTs)?
• Effectiveness of DDTs
• Judicial Precedents on Lie-Detector Tests
• Existing Concerns
• Conclusion

Background

• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recently conducted a second round of polygraph tests on several individuals linked to the rape and murder of a doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata.
• These tests were administered after one of the suspects provided inconsistent answers during questioning.

What are Deception Detection Tests (DDTs)?

• Deception Detection Tests are scientific methods used during interrogations to detect lies. These include:
  • Polygraph Tests: These measure physiological responses like blood pressure, pulse rate, and skin conductivity to determine if a person is lying.
  • Narco-Analysis: A drug-induced state where the subject is believed to be less capable of lying.
  • Brain Mapping: This method measures brain activity to detect recognition of familiar stimuli, which can indicate deception.

Effectiveness of DDTs

• The effectiveness of these tests is widely debated in the medical community.
• In a 2010 paper published in the Indian Journal of Medical Research, it was highlighted that lie-detection techniques have been heavily criticized and their ability to uncover "concealed knowledge in real-world settings" remains uncertain.
• Similarly, a 2019 study in the United States pointed out high false positive rates and noted that people can be trained to manipulate the results of a polygraph.

Judicial Precedents on Lie-Detector Tests

• Before 2010, Indian courts were supportive of using DDTs in investigations, often not requiring the consent of the accused.
• However, in a landmark ruling in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that these tests could only be conducted with the consent of the accused, citing the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
  • Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India states that no person accused of an offense can be forced to give evidence or testimony that could incriminate themselves.
  • This is a fundamental right that protects people from being compelled to testify against themselves.
• The Court further mandated that individuals volunteering for such tests must have access to a lawyer and be apprised of the physical, emotional, and legal implications of undergoing the test.
• Additionally, it required that the subject’s consent be formally recorded before a judicial magistrate and that the guidelines set out by the National Human Rights Commission in 2000 for administering these tests be strictly adhered to.

Existing Concerns

• Despite the Supreme Court's guidelines, the use of DDTs continues in India, especially in high-profile cases.
• There are significant concerns about the coercive nature of these tests and the potential for their misuse, such as extracting false confessions under duress.
• Additionally, there is criticism that these tests are not scientifically reliable and that the refusal to undergo such tests is often used unfairly to imply guilt.

Conclusion

• The administration of lie-detector tests in India remains a contentious issue, balancing between the need for effective investigations and the protection of individual rights.
• While the Supreme Court has set strict guidelines for their use, the ethical and scientific validity of these tests continues to be debated.

Q1. What is the basic difference between Narco Test and Polygraphic Test?

While the narco test uses the method of narcotics to alter the consciousness of the person being questioned, the polygraph test relies on the person's physiological marks to determine the 'truth'.

Q2. What do you mean by Truth Syrum?

"Truth serum" is a colloquial name for any of a range of psychoactive drugs used in an effort to obtain information from subjects who are unable or unwilling to provide it otherwise. 

Source: Is the administration of lie-detector tests legally valid? | Explained

What’s in today’s article?

• Why in News?
• Modern Judiciary in India
• Key highlights of the speech delivered by PM Modi
• Key Highlights of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud's Speech

Why in News?

The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) upheld several provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), affirming the broad powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in investigating and arresting individuals accused of money laundering. In this judgement, the apex court supported stringent bail conditions under the PMLA, reinforcing the Act's robust framework to tackle money laundering.

However, despite this ruling, the Supreme Court has also made smaller interventions that have gradually moderated some of these stringent provisions. These interventions aim to balance the need for stringent anti-money laundering measures with the protection of individual rights, particularly concerning arrest and bail. 

This reflects the Court's ongoing efforts to ensure that the enforcement of the PMLA does not infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused.

Various relaxations extended by the Supreme Court to the PMLA Accused

• On grounds of arrest
  • Section 19 of the PMLA gives the ED the power of arrest if the material it possesses gives it reason to believe an individual is guilty of money laundering. 
  • The accused must be informed of the grounds of arrest “as soon as may be”.
  • In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that the ED is not required to provide a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (similar to an FIR) to the accused, but only needs to inform them of the reasons for their arrest.
  • However, in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court emphasized that the accused have a fundamental right under Article 20 of the Constitution to be informed of the grounds of their arrest. 
  • The Court observed that, in practice, the grounds were sometimes provided orally and sometimes in writing. 
  • It clarified that the grounds of arrest must always be given in writing, without exception. Failure to provide written grounds would render the arrest illegal and invalid. 
  • This verdict underscores the importance of protecting the rights of the accused while ensuring the enforcement of the law.
• On bail for undertrials
  • Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allowed for the release on bail of individuals detained for up to half the maximum period of imprisonment for an offense while their trial or investigation was ongoing. 
  • In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court extended this provision to apply to cases under the PMLA. 
    • This interpretation was reaffirmed by the Court in May 2024 in Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar v. Directorate of Enforcement.
  • However, Section 436A has been replaced by Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which may impact PMLA cases. 
    • A key change is a new explanation that excludes the application of the bail provision if multiple offenses or cases are pending against the accused—a scenario common in money laundering cases. 
    • This amendment potentially limits the benefit of bail under the PMLA, making it more challenging for accused individuals to secure release under the revised legal framework.
  • However, in August 2024, while delivering a verdict, SC reiterated that the legal principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” will apply even in cases registered under the PMLA.
• On ‘need and necessity to arrest’
  • In July 2024, the SC granted interim bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi excise policy case, where the ED had arrested him under Section 19 of the PMLA. 
  • Kejriwal challenged the legality of his arrest, arguing that there was no "necessity" for it.
    • He claimed that the material on which the ED based his arrest was available in July 2023, but he was only arrested in March 2024.
  • Section 19(1) of the PMLA requires the ED to have reason to believe that the accused is guilty, which the court noted must meet a high threshold, implying that these reasons should be based on "evidence admissible in court. 
  • The Supreme Court also referred the question of whether the "need and necessity to arrest" can be a valid ground for challenging an arrest under the PMLA to a five-judge bench for further consideration. 
    • This referral indicates the court's intention to scrutinize the conditions under which arrests are made under the PMLA, potentially influencing future interpretations of the law.
• On relaxing twin conditions
  • In August 2024, the SC granted bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy case. 
  • Under Section 45 of the PMLA, the "twin conditions" for bail are stringent: the accused must prove that they did not commit an offense under the PMLA and are unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. 
    • This effectively reverses the standard burden of proof in criminal cases.
  • However, the bench ruled that these conditions could be relaxed in cases where the accused has been incarcerated for a long period without trial proceedings commencing. 
    • In Sisodia's case, he had been imprisoned for approximately 17 months without the trial starting. 
  • This decision underscores the Court's recognition of prolonged pre-trial detention as a factor warranting the relaxation of otherwise stringent bail conditions under the PMLA.
• On bail exception for women
  • In August 2024, the apex Court granted bail to BRS leader K Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy case, citing the exception in Section 45 of the PMLA, which allows for the release on bail of women if the Special Court so directs.
  • The Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court's earlier decision to deny Kavitha bail, where the High Court had argued that because she was "well educated," she did not qualify as a "vulnerable woman" under the exception. 
  • The ruling reaffirms that the exception in Section 45 is applicable to women regardless of their educational background, ensuring that the provision is interpreted in a manner consistent with its intent.
• On confession to ED officer
  • Section 50 of the PMLA empowers the ED to summon individuals and require them to make statements during investigations. 
  • In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), the SC ruled that this provision does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
  • However, under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), confessions made to police officers are inadmissible as evidence during a trial. 
    • In Prem Prakash v. Union of India (2024), a case was presented where the accused admitted guilt while in judicial custody. 
    • In this case, the SC said that a person in custody cannot be considered as operating with a free mind, suggesting that such an individual might be under duress or coercion. 
  • In past judgments, the apex court held that evidence obtained through compelled testimony or coercive methods violates the right against self-incrimination.
  • This reasoning emphasizes that confessions or admissions made while in custody, especially if they are compelled or coerced, cannot be considered voluntary.
  • Hence, they are inadmissible as evidence, reinforcing the protection against self-incrimination.

Q.1. What recent Supreme Court decisions have impacted the rights of the accused under the PMLA? 

Recent Supreme Court rulings have clarified that the grounds for arrest must be provided in writing, extended bail rights for undertrials, and addressed the admissibility of confessions. The Court has also reviewed the necessity of arrest and relaxed stringent bail conditions in specific cases.

Q.2. How has the Supreme Court addressed the issue of confessions made to ED officers under PMLA? 

The Supreme Court has ruled that confessions made to Enforcement Directorate officers under Section 50 of the PMLA are not in violation of self-incrimination rights, but emphasized that coerced or compelled confessions are inadmissible as evidence, reinforcing protections against self-incrimination.

Source: How Supreme Court has centred rights of the accused in recent PMLA casws

What’s in today’s article?

• Why in News?
• Data on Undocumented Indian Immigration to US:
• Factors Responsible for the Undocumented Indian Immigration to US: 
• Why has there been an Unprecedented Growth of Undocumented Indians Crossing US Borders in Recent Years?

Why in News?

According to new data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an unprecedented number of undocumented Indian immigrants are crossing U.S. borders on foot.

Data on Undocumented Indian Immigration to US:

• In the fiscal year 2022-23, 96,917 Indians entered the US without papers. It marks a fivefold increase from FY 2019-20, when just 19,883 Indians entered the US without papers.
• Out of the nearly 97,000 encounters in FY 2022-23, 30,010 were at the Canadian border and 41,770 at the Southern border.

Factors Responsible for the Undocumented Indian Immigration to US: 

• Overall growth in global migration since the pandemic: The number of undocumented Indians in the US has been climbing since borders opened post-Covid, with 30,662 encountered in the FY 2021 and 63,927 in the FY 2022.
• Unregulated travel agencies in India: With social media-savvy groups mushrooming as travel agencies, hopeful migrants often pay their life savings to make the journey.
• Smugglers using increasingly sophisticated routes: From the Middle East to Europe to Africa/ South America to the south of Mexico to the northern cities of Mexico, and then finally to the U.S.
• Extreme visa backlogs: Why would one wait for a visitor visa in Delhi if s/he can make it faster to the Southern border of the US?
• Unguarded Canadian border:
  • Canada offers the ideal combination of an accessible visa and a soft border.
  • It’s a much safer option than taking one of those ‘dunki’ (illegal) routes via West Asia, Africa or the Caribbean, to join the crowd waiting to cross the heavily guarded Mexico border

Why has there been an Unprecedented Growth of Undocumented Indians Crossing US Borders in Recent Years?

• Push factors:
  • Oppression of minority communities in India. The recent spike might have something to do with worsening conditions for minorities like Muslims, Sikhs and Christians in India.
  • Farmers’ protests: The scale of the protests that followed a series of laws deregulating India’s agricultural sector in 2020, resulted in a spike in asylum claims.
• Pull factors:
  • The general success of Indian Americans in the US or of previous migrants who have taken the same journey are some of the factors that pull people in.
  • Decades-long visa backlogs have made it difficult for would-be immigrants to join their families in the US, leaving many with little recourse.

Q.1. Why are a growing number of Indians giving up citizenship?

A record number of 225,620 Indian Citizens have renounced their citizenship and have taken up foreign citizenship in 2022. The 'great Indian migration' is primarily believed to be an outcome of the search for better economic opportunities and improved social security.

Q.2. What are "donkey routes"?

A "donkey route" is a dangerous, circuitous journey that some people take to illegally immigrate to western countries, usually the United States. The term comes from the Punjabi word dunki, which means "to hop from place to place".

Source: Canadian visa in hand, record number of Indians illegally enter US, seek asylum in UK