The Siya Goyal Polygraph Test: What Indian Law Actually Says | EduLaw
EduLaw EditorialEduLaw : Beyond the FilesCan a lie detector prove guilt in India? A plain-English legal explainer on polygraph tests, Selvi v. State of Karnataka, Article 20(3), Article 21, NHRC safeguards and Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — using the Siya Goyal investigation as current-news context.
Skip to content Edu Law 🔗 Share 🌙 Dark Quick Answer Siya Goyal Case What is a Polygraph Stress ≠ Lying Can Police Force It? Art. 20(3) & 21 Consent NHRC Safeguards Court Use Section 23 BSA Myth vs Law Rights Checklist FAQ Sources EduLaw Explains · Legal Literacy The Siya Goyal Polygraph Test: What Indian Law Actually Says Can a lie detector prove guilt? Can police force someone to take one? And what does voluntary consent really mean? 📅 Updated on: July 3, 2026 ⏱ Reading time: 12 minutes ⚖️ Category: Criminal Law & Evidence Art. 20(3) & 21 Judicial Scrutiny Editorial note: This article explains general Indian law on polygraph testing. It does not assert or imply that Siya Goyal, Chetan Chaudhary, or any other individual is guilty of any offence. The investigation referenced here is ongoing, allegations are not findings of guilt, and every case-specific fact below is attributed to police statements or media reporting, subject to judicial determination. Quick Answer 🔗 Can a polygraph prove guilt in India? No. A polygraph may help investigators pursue leads, but its result is not by itself proof sufficient to convict someone. 🚫 Cannot Be Forced ✍️ Consent Matters 📉 Result Is Not Standalone Proof 🔍 Independent Evidence Decides the Case What is being reported in the Siya Goyal matter? 🔗 This section is a restrained, attributed summary of publicly reported facts, used only as the current-news hook for this legal explainer. It is not a finding of guilt against anyone, and the matter remains under active police investigation and is sub judice. ⚠️ Important: A person agreeing to a test is not admitting guilt. Courts decide criminal liability on admissible evidence, not on headlines. June 18, 2026 Pune-based businessman Ketan Agarwal, 26, died after falling from a cliff at Lohagad Fort near Lonavala in Pune district. The incident was initially reported as an accidental fall during a trek. (Moneycontrol) Following days According to police, the death was subsequently treated as a case of alleged homicide arising from an alleged conspiracy. Police arrested Agarwal's fiancée, Siya Goyal, 20, and another individual identified in reports as Chetan Chaudhary, 22. These remain allegations under investigation, not judicial findings. (Times of India) Late June 2026 Reports state police carried out scene-reconstruction exercises at Lohagad Fort with the accused, and that the court periodically extended police custody, reportedly till July 3, 2026, at the prosecution's request for further investigation. (Lawbeat) Around July 1–2, 2026 According to multiple reports, Pune Rural Police moved court seeking permission to conduct a polygraph examination of Siya Goyal, citing the absence of a direct eyewitness or conclusive evidence establishing who allegedly caused Agarwal's fall. (Outlook India) July 2, 2026 Reports citing Siya Goyal's legal counsel state that she gave her consent to undergo a polygraph examination, paving the way for police to formally pursue the test; similar reporting indicates Chetan Chaudhary was also asked to undergo the test. (News18) As of this update The investigation remains pending. Whether the polygraph test has since been administered, and any outcome, was not independently verified from reliable reporting at the time of writing. No court has returned a finding of guilt against any accused person, and the case remains sub judice. EduLaw does not repeat unverified allegations, alleged motive theories, or family statements as fact. Only the narrow, attributed points above are used, strictly as context for the legal explainer that follows. What Is a Polygraph Test? 🔗 A polygraph, popularly called a "lie detector," is an instrument that simultaneously records several involuntary bodily responses while a trained examiner asks a structured series of questions. It typically tracks cardiovascular activity (heart rate and blood pressure), respiration (breathing rate and depth), and electrodermal activity, which is the skin's sweat-based electrical conductivity. Some versions also track subtle body movement. The examiner compares a person's physiological reaction to "relevant" questions against their reaction to neutral or comparison questions, and then forms a subjective judgment about whether the pattern suggests deception. A polygraph records bodily responses. It does not read minds. It cannot see a memory, a thought, or an intention. It can only show that a nervous system reacted — and a reaction can be caused by many things besides lying, as the next section explains. Tap a coloured sensor point on the figure to see what it measures. Tap a sensor to begin — for example, the burgundy dot on the chest. Why Stress Is Not the Same as Lying 🔗 The core scientific problem with polygraph testing is that the autonomic nervous system does not have a special, unique reaction reserved only for lying. It reacts to threat, fear, and arousal in general — and being questioned by police about a serious matter is inherently threatening, whether or not a person has anything to hide. Column A: Truthful but anxious Fear of not being believed, even while telling the truth Past trauma or a frightening personal history General panic in an unfamiliar, high-stakes setting Pressure of a police/custodial environment Underlying medical conditions (e.g., cardiac or blood-pressure issues) Psychological conditions such as anxiety disorders Confusing or ambiguously worded questions Column B: Deceptive but calm Naturally low physiological reactivity Familiarity or rehearsal with the questioning process Calm disposition under pressure Countermeasure techniques or practised composure Examiner's tone, pacing, or the way questions are framed Fatigue or medication that blunts physiological response Illustrative Waveform Simulator Nervous truthful person Calm deceptive person Stress does not equal deception Select a scenario above to see an illustrative waveform pattern. Illustrative only. Not scientific evidence. Why Polygraphs Are Not Treated as Final Proof 🔗 Courts approach polygraph readings cautiously for reasons rooted in both science and law. Bodily responses recorded on the chart can have multiple innocent causes, so a spike in heart rate or sweat response cannot be automatically read as evidence of a lie. The examiner's interpretation of the chart is a subjective judgment, not an infallible measurement — different examiners can reasonably read the same chart differently. More fundamentally, a machine printout cannot replace the judicial process of weighing evidence, testing it through cross-examination, and applying the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. Every accused person is entitled to constitutional protections, including the presumption of innocence and a fair trial, which a bare chart reading cannot override. Stress signal ≠ proof of lying ≠ proof of guilt Can Police Force a Person to Take a Polygraph? 🔗 No. This is settled by the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Selvi v. State of Karnataka , (2010) 7 SCC 263 . A batch of criminal appeals raised the question of whether investigators could compel a suspect, accused, or even a witness to undergo narcoanalysis, a polygraph examination, or a Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP or "brain-mapping") test without their consent. A three-judge bench held that forcing a person to undergo any of these techniques amounts to "testimonial compulsion" — because the person's own bodily and mental responses are effectively used as evidence against them — and this violates the protection against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court also held that compelled testing is an unjustified, non-consensual intrusion into a person's personal liberty and "mental privacy," offending Article 21 , and can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. As a result, the Court ruled that no individual can be forcibly subjected to a polygraph, narcoanalysis, or BEAP test, whether during a criminal investigation or in any other context. At the same time, the Court left room for the voluntary administration of these tests, provided that the safeguards laid down by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its 2000 Guidelines are strictly followed. Crucially, the Court clarified that even where a person voluntarily agrees to the test, the raw result by itself cannot be admitted as evidence , because the subject does not exercise conscious control over their physiological responses during the test. What may potentially be used is any information or material subsequently and independently discovered with the help of a voluntary test — and even that limited use is governed by a narrow statutory rule, discussed later in this article, rather than by the machine output itself proving anything. Legal Update Note The Selvi judgment (2010) referred to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — the law then in force — for this narrow "discovery" rule. Since 1 July 2024, the field is governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 , and the equivalent rule today is the proviso to Section 23(2) of that Act, explained in detail further below. 🚫 Forced Test 1 Investigator seeks to compel testing 2 Raises Article 20(3) self-incrimination concerns 3 Raises Article 21 liberty & dignity concerns 4 Impermissible under Selvi ✅ Voluntary Test 1 Person is given a genuine option to refuse 2 NHRC safeguards must be followed 3 Test may proceed with recorded consent 4 Result alone is still not standalone proof 📌 Case Law Spotlight: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (click to expand) Case Name Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation (2010) 7 SCC 263 Year 2010 Court Supreme Court of India (three-judge bench) Holding Forced administration of polygraph, narcoanalysis and BEAP testing is unconstitutional under Articles 20(3) and 21; voluntary testing is permissible only subject to NHRC safeguards; test results alone, even if voluntary, are not admissible as evidence of guilt. Read More Full judgment on Indian Kanoon Staying Current More recently, in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , 2025 INSC 810 (Supreme Court, 9 June 2025), the Court reaffirmed the Selvi framework and clarified that an accused person does not have an absolute or indefeasible right to demand a narco-analysis test either. Courts must still examine free consent and the applicable safeguards before permitting any such voluntary test. (Indian Kanoon) Article 20(3) and Article 21, Explained 🔗 Two constitutional provisions form the backbone of the Selvi ruling. Use the toggle on each card below to switch between the formal legal wording and a plain-English citizen explanation. Article 20(3) Show Plain English "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." You cannot be forced to hand over evidence that comes from your own body or mind against your will. This is exactly why the police cannot strap a person to a polygraph and compel answers — the involuntary bodily reactions recorded during that process are treated as a form of testimony coming from that person. Article 21 Show Plain English "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The State cannot invade your personal liberty, bodily integrity, or even the privacy of your own thoughts without solid legal justification and a fair procedure. In Selvi, the Court treated forced polygraph, narco, or BEAP testing as exactly this kind of unjustified intrusion into a person's "mental privacy." What Does Voluntary Consent Really Mean? 🔗 Legally, "voluntary" consent must be free and informed — given without threats, custodial pressure, inducement, or a misunderstanding of what the process involves and what it does not. Consent obtained through fear or confusion is legally problematic and inconsistent with the safeguards discussed below. It is equally important to understand what consent does not do: it does not turn the test into a confession, it does not by itself make the resulting chart legally admissible, and it certainly does not amount to an admission of guilt or a shortcut to conviction. Consent simply permits the test to proceed, and only if the required safeguards are observed. ❌ Voluntary does NOT mean guilty ❌ Voluntary does NOT mean a confession ❌ Voluntary does NOT mean automatic admissibility ❌ Voluntary does NOT mean automatic conviction NHRC Safeguards for Voluntary Polygraph Testing 🔗 The Supreme Court in Selvi directed that the National Human Rights Commission's 2000 Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused must be strictly adhered to, and that similar safeguards should apply to narcoanalysis and BEAP testing as well. These safeguards were reproduced again by the Supreme Court in 2025 in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , confirming they remain the governing standard. 1 Real Choice to Refuse No polygraph test may be administered except on the basis of consent; the person must be given a genuine option to decline. 2 Access to Legal Advice A person who volunteers must be given access to a lawyer before proceeding. 3 Implications Explained The physical, emotional and legal implications of the test must be explained by police and the lawyer. 4 Consent Before a Judicial Magistrate Consent must be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate, with legal representation during that hearing, and the person must be told the statement will have the status of a statement to police, not a confession to the Magistrate. 5 Qualified, Independent Administration The actual test must be conducted by an independent agency (such as a hospital), in the presence of a lawyer. 6 Documentation & Dignity A full medical and factual narration of the manner in which information was received must be kept on record. Information → Legal Access → Magistrate → Consent → Test → Documentation Source: NHRC, "Guidelines Relating to Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test)," 2000, as reproduced in Selvi v. State of Karnataka , (2010) 7 SCC 263, and reaffirmed in Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , 2025 INSC 810. Read the NHRC document (PDF) . Can the Result Be Used in Court? 🔗 Not Automatically Even where a polygraph is conducted voluntarily with all safeguards observed, the chart itself is not a shortcut to establishing guilt, and it is not treated as equivalent to a confession. Indian courts require independent, admissible evidence before convicting anyone. Depending on the facts of a given case, this may include properly authenticated documents, CCTV or other digital records proved in accordance with law, witness testimony tested through cross-examination, forensic recoveries, location or call-data evidence, and other material that has been legally established. Every one of these categories remains open to challenge, and it is for the trial court to weigh their reliability and legal sufficiency — a polygraph reading cannot substitute for that judicial process. The Difference Between a Lead and Evidence 🔗 Polygraph-based information ↓ Possible investigative lead ↓ Independent police verification ↓ Actual recovery / corroboration / authenticated evidence ↓ Court decides admissibility and weight The graph is not the proof. Independent discovery is what may matter. Section 23, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 🔗 Under India's current evidence law, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the relevant statutory rule is found in Section 23 , titled "Confession to police officer." Its exact text reads: Statute Text — Section 23, BSA 2023 (1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. (2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved against him: Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved. In plain English: as a general rule, anything an accused person confesses directly to a police officer, or confesses while in police custody without a Magistrate present, cannot be used against them in court at all. The proviso creates one narrow exception — if the accused's statement to police leads to the actual, independent discovery of a fact (for instance, a specific object being found at a specific place), then only that small sliver of the statement which distinctly relates to what was actually discovered may potentially be proved — not the whole statement, and not any accompanying claim of guilt. This is not a blanket permission to use every statement, chart, or result from an investigative technique such as a polygraph. Section 23 does not make a polygraph chart admissible merely because a test happened. The provision applies only where a genuine, independently verifiable fact has actually been discovered, and even then, courts scrutinise the circumstances fact by fact before allowing that narrow portion to be proved. Do Not Misread This Section Myth: "Anything said during a test becomes evidence." Reality: No. The law permits only a narrow discovery-related use, subject to strict conditions — and this rule applies to statements made to police generally, not as a special carve-out created for polygraph charts. Source: Official India Code text of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 23 . Myth vs Law: Quick Summary 🔗 Myth What the Law Actually Says "A lie detector proves guilt." No. It cannot by itself prove guilt. "Police can make anyone take it." No. Forced polygraph testing is unconstitutional. "Consent means confession." No. Consent is not an admission of guilt. "The reading is enough for conviction." No. Courts need independent admissible evidence. "A test can never help investigators." It may help generate leads, but a lead is not final proof. Myth: "A lie detector proves guilt." Law: No. It cannot by itself prove guilt. Myth: "Police can make anyone take it." Law: No. Forced polygraph testing is unconstitutional. Myth: "Consent means confession." Law: No. Consent is not an admission of guilt. Myth: "The reading is enough for conviction." Law: No. Courts need independent admissible evidence. Myth: "A test can never help investigators." Law: It may help generate leads, but a lead is not final proof. Citizen Rights Checklist 🔗 If police ever seek a polygraph test in connection with any matter, these are the kinds of questions a citizen may wish to ask. Tap each item to mark it as noted. Is the test voluntary? Have I spoken to a lawyer? Have the consequences been explained to me? Is consent being recorded before a Judicial Magistrate? Who will conduct the test, and are they independent? Will the process be properly documented? Do I understand that I can refuse? 0 of 7 noted This is general legal information, not personal legal advice. Consult a criminal-law advocate for advice on an actual case. A polygraph is an investigative tool, not a guilt machine. In India, law and independently proved evidence — not a machine output — decide criminal responsibility. Frequently Asked Questions 🔗 What is a polygraph test in India? A polygraph, popularly called a lie detector, is a device that records physiological signals such as heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate and skin sweat response while a person answers questions. An examiner looks for significant changes in these readings compared to a baseline. It does not literally detect lies; it records bodily stress responses which an examiner then interprets. Can police force a lie detector test in India? No. The Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka , (2010) 7 SCC 263, held that no person can be forcibly subjected to a polygraph, narcoanalysis or BEAP (brain-mapping) test. Forced testing violates the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Is a polygraph test admissible in Indian courts? The polygraph chart or result is not, by itself, admissible as substantive proof of guilt, even when the test was taken voluntarily. Courts have held that a subject does not have conscious control over their physiological responses, so the raw result cannot be equated with a reliable statement of fact. What did Selvi v. State of Karnataka decide? In Selvi v. State of Karnataka , (2010) 7 SCC 263, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that involuntary narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and BEAP (brain-mapping) tests violate Article 20(3) and Article 21. It permitted voluntary testing only subject to NHRC safeguards, and clarified that even a voluntary test's result cannot by itself be treated as evidence. Can a person refuse a polygraph test? Yes. Under the NHRC's 2000 Guidelines, endorsed in Selvi , a person must be given a genuine option to refuse a polygraph test, and no forced consequence can flow from choosing not to undergo it. Does agreeing to a polygraph mean admitting guilt? No. Consenting to undergo a polygraph test is a procedural choice, not a confession or an admission of guilt. Guilt is a legal conclusion reached only after a trial evaluates admissible evidence. Can police use a polygraph result to arrest someone? A polygraph outcome may inform investigators and shape further inquiry, but an arrest and any eventual prosecution must ultimately rest on independent material and legal grounds recognised under criminal procedure, not on the chart reading alone. What are NHRC guidelines for polygraph tests? The National Human Rights Commission's 2000 Guidelines, referred to in Selvi , require voluntary consent with a genuine option to refuse, access to a lawyer, an explanation of physical, emotional and legal implications, consent recorded before a Judicial Magistrate, legal representation at that hearing, administration by an independent qualified agency, and full documentation of the process. What is the role of Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023? Section 23 bars confessions made to a police officer, and confessions made in police custody unless made before a Magistrate, from being proved against the accused. Its proviso allows only the narrow part of information that distinctly relates to a fact actually discovered to be proved. It does not make a polygraph chart admissible merely because a test took place. Can a polygraph lead to recovery of evidence? Information obtained during a voluntary polygraph process may point investigators toward a lead. If that lead results in an independent, verifiable discovery, only the narrow part of information distinctly connected to that discovery may potentially be proved under the discovery rule, subject to judicial scrutiny. What is the difference between a lead and admissible evidence? A lead is an investigative pointer that helps police decide where to look. Admissible evidence is material that has been independently verified, corroborated and legally proved before a court. A polygraph can at most generate a lead; it cannot substitute for admissible evidence. Does anxiety affect a polygraph result? Yes. Fear, trauma, medical conditions, psychological conditions, unfamiliar surroundings and confusing questioning can all cause a truthful person to show stress responses. This is one reason courts treat polygraph readings with caution rather than as conclusive proof of deception. Sources and Further Reading 🔗 Supreme Court Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 263 — full judgment text (Indian Kanoon mirror of the official record). Supreme Court Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 810 (9 June 2025) — reaffirms and clarifies the Selvi/NHRC safeguards framework. Statute Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 23 , official India Code text. NHRC NHRC Guidelines Relating to Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test), 2000 — official NHRC document. Reporting News18: "Siya Goyal, Chetan Consent To Lie Detector Test. What Happens Next?" (updated 2 July 2026). Reporting Outlook India: "'No Evidence on Who Pushed Ketan': Police Seeks Polygraph Test on Siya Goyal" . Reporting Lawbeat: "Ketan Agarwal Death Case: Court Sends Accused Siya Goyal, Chetan Chaudhary To Police Custody Till July 3" . Reporting Times of India: reporting on the Lohagad Fort investigation and seizures . All case-specific facts in this article are attributed to the reports above and remain subject to ongoing investigation, judicial scrutiny and trial. EduLaw does not assert the guilt or innocence of any individual named in these reports. EduLaw publishes plain-English explainers on Indian law for general legal literacy. This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific matter, please consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 EduLaw. All rights reserved. 📖 Read ⚖️ Key Law ✅ Rights 💾 Save Summary (function(){ "use strict"; /* Reading progress bar */ var progressBar = document.getElementById('progressBar'); function updateProgress(){ var h = document.documentElement; var scrolled = h.scrollTop || document.body.scrollTop; var height = (h.scrollHeight || document.body.scrollHeight) - h.clientHeight; var pct = height > 0 ? (scrolled / height) * 100 : 0; progressBar.style.width = pct + '%'; } document.addEventListener('scroll', updateProgress, {passive:true}); updateProgress(); /* Dark mode toggle (default remains light unless user toggles) */ var themeBtn = document.getElementById('themeToggle'); var savedTheme = null; try { savedTheme = localStorage.getItem('edulaw-theme'); } catch(e){} if(savedTheme === 'dark'){ document.documentElement.classList.add('dark'); themeBtn.textContent = '☀️ Light'; } themeBtn.addEventListener('click', function(){ document.documentElement.classList.toggle('dark'); var isDark = document.documentElement.classList.contains('dark'); themeBtn.textContent = isDark ? '☀️ Light' : '🌙 Dark'; try { localStorage.setItem('edulaw-theme', isDark ? 'dark' : 'light'); } catch(e){} }); /* Share button */ document.getElementById('shareBtn').addEventListener('click', function(){ var shareData = { title: document.title, text: 'The Siya Goyal Polygraph Test: What Indian Law Actually Says — an EduLaw explainer.', url: window.location.href }; if(navigator.share){ navigator.share(shareData).catch(function(){}); } else { copyToClipboard(window.location.href); alert('Link copied to clipboard.'); } }); function copyToClipboard(text){ if(navigator.clipboard && navigator.clipboard.writeText){ navigator.clipboard.writeText(text); } else { var ta = document.createElement('textarea'); ta.value = text; document.body.appendChild(ta); ta.select(); try{ document.execCommand('copy'); }catch(e){} document.body.removeChild(ta); } } /* Copy-link buttons next to headings */ document.querySelectorAll('.copyLink').forEach(function(btn){ btn.addEventListener('click', function(){ var id = btn.getAttribute('data-id'); var url = window.location.origin + window.location.pathname + '#' + id; copyToClipboard(url); var oldText = btn.textContent; btn.textContent = '✔'; setTimeout(function(){ btn.textContent = oldText; }, 1200); }); }); /* Sensor diagram interactivity */ var sensorData = { chest: "Heart & blood pressure sensor: tracks cardiovascular activity — heart rate and blood pressure changes during questioning.", arm: "Blood pressure cuff placement: monitors changes in blood pressure alongside pulse readings.", breath: "Respiration sensor: measures breathing rate and depth, which can shift with stress, effort, or simply talking.", fingers: "Skin conductance (sweat) sensor: detects tiny changes in perspiration on the fingertips, linked to the body's general arousal response." }; document.querySelectorAll('.sensor').forEach(function(dot){ dot.addEventListener('click', function(){ var key = dot.getAttribute('data-info'); document.getElementById('sensorText').textContent = sensorData[key] || ''; }); }); /* Waveform simulator */ var waveShapes = { truthful: "0,50 20,48 40,20 60,70 80,15 100,65 120,30 140,55 160,25 180,60 200,20 220,68 240,35 260,50 280,22 300,58 320,40 340,50 360,45 400,50", deceptive: "0,50 20,50 40,52 60,49 80,51 100,50 120,49 140,51 160,50 180,50 200,51 220,49 240,50 260,50 280,49 300,51 320,50 340,50 360,50 400,50", reset: "0,50 40,45 80,55 120,45 160,55 200,45 240,55 280,45 320,55 360,45 400,50" }; var waveCaptions = { truthful: "A truthful person may still show sharp spikes — from fear, nerves, or the stress of the situation itself, not from lying.", deceptive: "A calm, practised, or naturally low-reactivity person may show very little variation — even if they are being deceptive.", reset: "The takeaway: physiological variation is common to many emotional states. Stress alone never proves deception, and calm alone never proves truthfulness." }; var simWave = document.getElementById('simWave'); var waveCaption = document.getElementById('waveCaption'); document.querySelectorAll('.waveBtn').forEach(function(btn){ btn.addEventListener('click', function(){ document.querySelectorAll('.waveBtn').forEach(function(b){ b.classList.remove('active'); }); btn.classList.add('active'); var mode = btn.getAttribute('data-mode'); simWave.setAttribute('points', waveShapes[mode]); waveCaption.textContent = waveCaptions[mode]; }); }); /* Legal / Plain English toggle */ document.querySelectorAll('.toggleBtn').forEach(function(btn){ btn.addEventListener('click', function(){ var target = btn.getAttribute('data-target'); var legal = document.getElementById(target + '-legal'); var plain = document.getElementById(target + '-plain'); var showingPlain = plain.classList.contains('show'); if(showingPlain){ plain.classList.remove('show'); legal.classList.add('show'); btn.textContent = 'Show Plain English'; } else { legal.classList.remove('show'); plain.classList.add('show'); btn.textContent = 'Show Legal Wording'; } }); }); /* Checklist progress */ var checklist = document.getElementById('checklist'); var checkProgress = document.getElementById('checkProgress'); checklist.querySelectorAll('input[type=checkbox]').forEach(function(cb){ cb.addEventListener('change', function(){ cb.closest('.checkItem').classList.toggle('checked', cb.checked); var total = checklist.querySelectorAll('input[type=checkbox]').length; var checked = checklist.querySelectorAll('input[type=checkbox]:checked').length; checkProgress.textContent = checked + ' of ' + total + ' noted'; }); }); /* Mobile bottom nav */ document.querySelectorAll('.bottomNav [data-scroll]').forEach(function(btn){ btn.addEventListener('click', function(){ var id = btn.getAttribute('data-scroll'); var el = document.getElementById(id); if(el) el.scrollIntoView({behavior:'smooth', block:'start'}); }); }); document.getElementById('saveSummaryBtn').addEventListener('click', function(){ var summary = "EduLaw Summary — Polygraph Test Law in India\n\n" + "1. A polygraph records bodily responses (heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, skin sweat) — it does not read minds.\n" + "2. Police CANNOT force a polygraph test. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263, holds forced testing violates Article 20(3) and Article 21.\n" + "3. Voluntary testing is allowed only with NHRC safeguards: real choice to refuse, legal advice, implications explained, consent before a Judicial Magistrate, independent administration, and full documentation.\n" + "4. Even a voluntary test's RESULT is not, by itself, admissible evidence or proof of guilt.\n" + "5. Only information distinctly leading to an independently discovered fact may potentially be proved, under the narrow proviso to Section 23(2), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — subject to judicial scrutiny.\n" + "6. A polygraph can at most generate an investigative lead. A lead is not the same as admissible evidence.\n" + "7. The Siya Goyal/Ketan Agarwal matter is under investigation; reports of consent to a polygraph test are not findings of guilt.\n"; if(navigator.clipboard && navigator.clipboard.writeText){ navigator.clipboard.writeText(summary).then(function(){ alert('Summary copied to clipboard.'); }).catch(function(){ alert(summary); }); } else { alert(summary); } }); })();