Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question refers to the landmark Supreme Court case of \textit{Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010)}. This case dealt with the legality and constitutionality of involuntary administration of certain scientific tests on accused individuals for the purpose of investigation.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The Supreme Court examined these tests in light of two fundamental rights:
1. Article 20(3) - Right against Self-Incrimination: This article states that "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." The Court held that forcing an individual to undergo these tests results in the involuntary imparting of information, which amounts to testimonial compulsion and thus violates Article 20(3).
2. Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The Court held that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes a right to mental privacy. Involuntarily subjecting a person to these tests is an unwarranted intrusion into their mind and privacy, thus violating Article 21.
The other articles mentioned are not directly relevant:
- Art. 20(1) deals with ex-post facto laws.
- Art. 20(2) deals with double jeopardy.
- Art. 23 deals with the prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The Supreme Court in the Selvi case struck down the compulsory use of Narco Analysis, Polygraph, and Brain Mapping tests on the grounds that they violated the right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and the right to life and personal liberty, including mental privacy (Article 21). Therefore, option (A) is correct.