The National Human Rights Commission on Polygraph Test

Checkout Forums Jurists and Jurisprudence U.S. Supreme Court on The Polygraph and Lie­Detection Test The National Human Rights Commission on Polygraph Test


The National Human Rights Commission had published ‘Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie­Detector Test) on an Accused’ in 2000.

These guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar  safeguards should be adopted for conducting the ‘Narcoanalysis technique’ and the ‘Brain electrical Activation Profile’ test. While so holding it directed this­wise:­

“(i) No Lie­Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test.

(ii) If the accused volunteers for a Lie­ Detector Test, he should be given access to a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal implication of such a test should be explained to him by the police and his lawyer.

(iii) The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.

(iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to have agreed should be duly represented by a lawyer.

(v) At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a ‘confessional’ statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made to the police.

(vi) The Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to the detention including the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation.

(vii) The actual recording of the Lie­Detector Test shall be done by an independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence of a lawyer.

(viii) A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the information received must be taken on record.”