Pahalgam terrorist attack: Jammu court rejects NIA bid for narco, polygraph tests

JAMMU: A designated NIA court in Jammu has rejected the agency's request to subject two arrested men to narco-analysis and polygraph tests in connection with the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack, ruling the techniques would breach constitutional protections against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

“The underlying rationale of said right is to ensure the reliability as well as voluntariness of statements admitted as evidence. Invocations of a compelling public interest cannot justify the dilution of constitutional rights,” Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Gandotra said.


NIA took charge of the probe five days after Pakistan-backed gunmen massacred 26 people — 25 tourists and a local ponywalah — in Baisaran meadow near Pahalgam. Three armed attackers allegedly received food, shelter, and logistical support from two ponywalahs — Bashir Ahmad Jothatd and Parvaiz Ahmad. Both were arrested on June 22 and remain in judicial custody at Amphalla jail in Jammu.

The agency said the duo “knowingly harboured” the terrorists in a remote dhok before the assault. The Gujjar-Bakerwal pastoral people build temporary shelters called dhoks in the mountains to serve as seasonal settlements during their migration to higher altitudes in search of grazing lands for their livestock.

NIA sought narco and lie-detector tests to obtain “precise and substantial leads” and contended the men had volunteered for the procedures to prove innocence. Defence counsel countered that the accused, illiterate members of the Gujjar-Bakerwal community, had not consented. They argued that if genuine consent was sought, the two should have been produced before a judicial magistrate, apprised of procedures in their language, and given time to decide.

On Aug 29, both men were produced before Judge Gandotra, who explained the tests in Urdu. In open court, they declined consent. The court dismissed NIA’s application, which relied on a 2017 Supreme Court ruling that said no person can be forcibly subjected to such techniques but left room for voluntary administration under safeguards.