Opinion - News Analysis   

Narcoanalysis: the disturbing trend in India

P. Chandra Sekharan

IN HIS May 8, 2007, rejoinder to the article, "We need to talk abut narcoanalysis," published in the Op-Ed pages of The Hindu , Dr. B.M Mohan, director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, threw a gibe at me, saying my views "are of no relevance or consequence," since I have no "exposure to these aspects of narcoanalysis." Of course, I have not been exposed to the theatrical [operation theatre] gimmicks involved in this process — including the wearing of masks and caps and tapping the cheeks of people like Telgi. Nor have I ever arrogated to myself the authority of interrogation. However, in my service of more than four decades as medical physicist and later as forensic scientist, I do have exposure to the practice. Narcoanalysis began in the 1920s and was later abandoned as an uncivilised procedure. I can say with authority that no forensic science laboratory anywhere in the world is involved in conducting narcoanalysis at any point of time.

Dr. Mohan has resurrected narcoanalysis in India and has the Indian police rallying round him so they can obtain a `four-in-one' package report. The four components of the report are the psychological profile, polygraph test results, brain mapping, and narcoanalysis results. All four tests are reported by a single polygraphist. This raises the possibility that results in one test will prejudice findings in the next. This is against principles of scientific investigation and process. My background as a research-scientist compels me to throw out of the window the entire bundle of `truth-detecting techniques.'

I had the privilege of watching the video recording of narco-tests performed in Bangalore. One must watch it to believe the torture and trauma inflicted on the examinees. It is absolutely illegal for non-medical personnel to conduct the narco-test. It is against the anaesthetists' code of conduct to administer anaesthesia under the directions of non-medical personnel. The anaesthetist who assisted the Bangalore laboratory in one case told the court during cross examination he was not aware that the `narcoanalyst' was a non-medical person.

When questioning the drug-induced suspect is itself based on police information, from where is the verification made? It is absurd to think that the procedure, science, and technology adopted in narcoanalysis in its investigative mode will be different from those adopted in its therapeutic mode. The `narcoanalytical' procedure is the same. The outcome (revelations) will also be the same. I don't think pentothal sodium will be dancing differently in the investigative mode.

(Professor Chandra Sekharan, a Padma Bhushan awardee, is president of Forensics International, Bangalore. E-mail: pcsekharan2000@yahoo.com.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A rising tide of hate
Bush and Al Qaedas
The drive to Dhaka — whose idea was it?
NREGP: no place for single women
Narcoanalysis: the disturbing trend in India
Europe must let Turkey in
Dubai ruler gives $10bn for education
Corrections and Clarifications
Right advice
Need for cooperation
End the issue
On ragging

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu