Lack Of Fluency In Hindi No Ground To Refuse Narcoanalysis Test, Police Must Arrange Interpreters: Rajasthan High Court

"If any witness is not acquainted with a particular language or is not fluent in Hindi language, this alone cannot be a ground for refusal of conducting narcoanalysis test of such person/suspect/witness. Under such eventuality, the Authorities concerned were expected to depute a person, who is acquainted with the mother tongue of such suspect/witness/victim," Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 21, 2026, held that the lack of fluency in a particular language, such as Hindi, cannot be a valid justification for refusing to conduct a narcoanalysis test.

A Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that in cases where a suspect or witness is not acquainted with the language used by investigators, the authorities are duty-bound to provide a language interpreter to facilitate the scientific examination. The court emphasized that investigative agencies cannot escape their liability to conduct a fair probe merely because of language barriers or the passage of time.

The matter arose from a petition challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot, which had accepted a ‘Negative’ Final Report in a 2015 murder case involving the petitioner’s brother. Despite the petitioner consenting to a narcoanalysis test during the investigation, the authorities refused to conduct it on the ground that he lacked fluency in Hindi. Consequently, the Investigating Officer (IO) closed the case, citing an inability to trace the unknown accused persons over six years.

The primary question before the court was whether the refusal to conduct a narcoanalysis test based on a language barrier was legally sustainable. The court was also called upon to determine if the police could close an investigation into a serious offence like murder simply because the accused remained untraceable for a prolonged period.

Language Barrier Not A Valid Reason For Denial

The court expressed "shock and surprise" at the reasoning provided by the investigating agency for not conducting the narcoanalysis test. It noted that if a subject is not fluent in a specific language, it is the responsibility of the concerned authorities to involve an expert or interpreter who understands the subject’s mother tongue.

The Bench observed that such a technicality cannot be allowed to impede the progress of a criminal investigation. It stressed that the essence of such tests is to aid the investigation, and administrative hurdles like language must be bridged by the state.

"The Authorities concerned were expected to depute a person, who is acquainted with the mother tongue of such suspect/witness/victim, in whose presence, the concerned narcoanalysis test can be conducted."

Mandatory Adherence To Selvi Guidelines

The Court highlighted that narcoanalysis tests must strictly adhere to the landmark guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Selvi & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (2010). The Bench pointed out that the Apex Court had specifically envisioned the inclusion of a language interpreter among the essential personnel required for the procedure.

The judgment noted that the personnel involved must include a forensic psychologist, an anaesthesiologist, a psychiatrist, a general physician, and a language interpreter if needed. Furthermore, the entire procedure must be captured in an audio-video format to ensure transparency and subsequent scrutiny.

"The personnel involved in conducting a “narcoanalysis” interview include a forensic psychologist, an anaesthesiologist, a psychiatrist, a general physician or other medical staff and a language interpreter if needed."

IO Cannot Abandon Investigation In 'Blind Murders'

Regarding the submission of the ‘Negative’ Final Report, the Court found no justification in the police's claim that the investigation should be closed because six years had passed. Justice Dhand remarked that in cases of "blind murders," the Investigating Officer is duty-bound to make all necessary efforts to trace the unknown accused.

The Court held that the IO cannot be allowed to escape his liability and duties to conduct a proper investigation. Closing a murder case merely because the accused are currently untraceable, without exhausting all scientific avenues like narcoanalysis, was deemed an abdication of duty.

"The Investigating Officer cannot be allowed to escape from his liability and duties to conduct the investigation in a proper way and he cannot be allowed to close the investigation... only on the count that the unknown accused persons are not traceable."

Considering the overall facts, the High Court quashed the order of the Judicial Magistrate and set aside the acceptance of the Negative Final Report. The matter has been remitted for further investigation, specifically directing that a narcoanalysis test be conducted for the petitioner or other suspects with the assistance of a language expert.

The Court directed the Additional Superintendent of Police to appoint a fresh Investigating Officer, not below the rank of Circle Inspector, to complete the probe expeditiously. The new IO is expected to submit a conclusion report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the concerned court after making all possible endeavors to solve the case.

The ruling reinforces the principle that scientific investigative tools must be accessible regardless of linguistic backgrounds. By citing the Selvi precedent, the Court has reiterated that the state must provide the necessary infrastructure, including interpreters, to ensure that the search for truth in criminal trials is not derailed by administrative negligence.

Date of Decision: 21 May 2026