Brain mapping vs. Article 20 of constitution

Sir 20th question

Sir isn't brain mapping done with the concurrence of the accused?

Then how can it violate article 20 (3) as they are not forced to give self-incriminating evidence?

Now, read the articles that you quite

Sir according to it the accused can't be forced to be a witness against himself

Hmm

What does brain mapping involve? procedure?

Brain mapping involves studying the anatomy of the brain and its functioning sir.

Sir, I think for lie detector test and brain mapping police should take permission from judge. Am I right ?

It can only happen with the consent of the accused.

Am I right ?

Yes

However, the court can also order in pursuit of truth a lie detection test

In any case, a brain mapping brings out the inner recesses of a person's memory

Scientifically, not very sound yet

And the act is involuntary

In a way, the person is forced to reveal the secrets that he would not normally have done

Sir I was thinking if it violates any fundamental right it would be article 21 (right to privacy) rather than 20 as it's done with his consent

So Article 20 also makes sense in a stretch

Consent vs. involuntary expose

So as it's an involuntary expose despite the consent it violates 20

Sir how?

Or isn't the convicts consent mandatory which is why the violation of 20

Yes

On May 5, 2010 the Supreme Court in India (Smt. Selvi vs. State of Karnataka) declared brain mapping, lie detector tests and narco-analysis to be unconstitutional, violating Article 20 (3) of Fundamental Rights. These techniques cannot be conducted forcefully on any individual and requires consent for the same. When they are conducted with consent, the material so obtained is regarded as evidence during trial of cases according to Section 27 of the Evidence Act

Sir, according to this it does not violate if consent is taken....and the question doesn't clearly specify if consent was taken....so can we presume it wasn't taken?

That is what we discussed now

Consent vs involuntary expose which becomes evidence against the accused

He becomes a witness against himself!