Compelling Accused To Give Voice Sample Doesn't Violate Article 20(3) But Safeguards Must Be Provided: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that compelling an accused to give voice sample to an investigating agency for comparison with intercepted telephone conversations "does not violate Article 20(3)" of the Constitution of India. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that while doing so does not amount to “testimonial compulsion”, but Courts must provide "safeguards" to the accused. The Court said that while the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and must yield to legitimate State interests, such as the prevention and investigation of crime.Justice Krishna made the observations while dealing with a plea filed by Kanpur based businessman, Moin Akhtar Qureshi, challenging a trial court order directing him to provide his voice samples to CBI for verification and comparison with certain intercepted telephonic conversations. Qureshi had joined the investigation and appeared before the CBI on multiple occasions in 2018. In March, 2021, the CBI filed an Application before the Special Judge seeking directions for Qureshi to give voice samples for comparison by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) with the intercepted calls obtained from the Income Tax Department.Dismissing the plea, the Court said that the direction issued by the trial court for Qureshi to provide a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution. “The only caution is to provide the safeguards, which have been ensured by the Ld. Special Judge,” the Court said. It further rejected Qureshi's technical objection that there is no statutory provision authorizing taking of voice sample especially when his status as an accused or the specifics of his arrest under Section 311A Cr.P.C was not clear. The Court said that such voice samples are considered “material evidence” for comparison and are not oral or documentary testimony that by itself, tends to incriminate the accused. “The voice sample itself is innocuous; it is the comparison with the material discovered during investigation, i.e. the intercepts, that may incriminate, which does not fall under testimonial compulsion,” the Court held.It added that CBI has the prerogative to scientifically verify if the voice in the material available with them, matches with that of Qureshi.“The Petitioner is directed to comply with the directions of the Ld. Special Judge and present himself for giving voice samples as per the schedule to be fixed by the Trial Court/Investigating Officer,” the judge concluded.Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Gaurav Vishwakarma, AdvocatesCounsel for Respondents: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP with Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, AdvocateTitle: MOIN AKHTAR QURESHI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 14Click here to read order

Compelling Accused To Give Voice Sample Doesn't Violate Article 20(3) But Safeguards Must Be Provided: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Compelling Accused To Give Voice Sample Doesn't Violate Article 20(3) But Safeguards Must Be Provided: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers