Court Blocks NIA’s Polygraph, Narco Test for Terror Suspects
The agency claimed the accused had consented to the tests to prove their innocence.
The special court in Jammu has rejected the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) request to conduct polygraph and narco-analysis tests on two men accused in the devastating Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives on April 22, 2025. The court’s decision, grounded in constitutional protections, cited the violation of the right against self-incrimination, dealing a blow to the NIA’s investigative strategy in one of the region’s deadliest attacks.
The NIA, which assumed control of the case just five days after the brutal attack in the scenic Baisaran valley, sought permission to perform the controversial tests on Bashir Ahmad Jothatd and Parvaiz Ahmed, arrested on June 26 for allegedly providing shelter and logistical support to the terrorists.
The agency claimed the accused had consented to the tests to prove their innocence. However, during the court proceedings, both men firmly denied giving any such consent, contradicting the NIA’s assertions. The court’s six-page order, made public on September 11, 2025, emphasized that “involuntary administration of scientific techniques such as narco-analysis and polygraph examination” infringes on constitutional rights.
The Pahalgam attack, which targeted tourists in the picturesque Baisaran meadows—often called “mini Switzerland”—was a chilling act of violence that left 25 tourists from various states and one local, Syed Adil Shah, dead. Shah heroically attempted to disarm one of the attackers, sacrificing his life in the process. The NIA alleges that Jothatd and Ahmed knowingly harbored three armed terrorists at a seasonal dhok (hut) at Hill Park, providing food, shelter, and logistical aid before the attack. The agency charged the duo under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for their alleged role in facilitating the terrorists, who selectively targeted victims based on their religious identity.
Also Read: Goa Minister Cleared in 1998 Scam Case
The court’s ruling drew on legal precedents, including a Karnataka High Court judgment and guidelines from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). These guidelines mandate that consent for such tests must be recorded before a judicial magistrate and conducted by an independent agency, such as a hospital, in the presence of lawyers. The Deputy Legal Aid Defence Counsel further challenged the NIA’s claims, arguing that no voluntary consent was obtained from the accused while in custody, rendering the agency’s plea invalid.
The rejection of the NIA’s request has sparked debates about the balance between investigative techniques and individual rights. Polygraph and narco-analysis tests, often criticized for their reliability and ethical implications, remain contentious tools in criminal investigations. The court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional safeguards, even in high-profile terror cases.
The Pahalgam attack, one of the most gruesome in Jammu and Kashmir’s recent history, saw swift action from security forces, with the army neutralizing all three terrorists involved on July 28. As the NIA continues its investigation, the focus remains on uncovering the full extent of the terror network behind the attack. The agency has vowed to pursue all leads, with further developments expected as the case progresses.
