Court Rules Voice Sampling Does Not Violate Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution, Dismisses Petitioner's Objections
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Moin Akhtar Qureshi challenging the order of the Special Judge directing him to provide voice samples for investigation purposes. The decision, delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on December 24, 2025, reinforces the legal position that compelling an accused to provide voice samples does not constitute testimonial compulsion and is not a violation of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination.
The case arose from allegations that between October 2013 and March 2014, the Income Tax Department intercepted telephonic conversations that suggested Qureshi was acting as a middleman for certain public servants. Following a request by the Directorate of Enforcement, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR in 2017 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In 2021, the CBI sought directions from the Special Judge to obtain Qureshi's voice samples for comparison with the intercepted calls. The Special Judge granted this request, prompting Qureshi to challenge the order, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights and that the intercepted materials were inadmissible as they lacked compliance with statutory guidelines and a Section 65-B certificate under the Evidence Act.
The High Court, however, upheld the Special Judge’s order, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., which recognized the Magistrate's power to direct voice sampling even in the absence of specific legislative provisions. Justice Krishna emphasized that voice samples are considered "material evidence" and do not amount to testimonial compulsion. The ruling also clarified that the right to privacy, while fundamental, is not absolute and must yield to legitimate state interests such as crime prevention and investigation.
Furthermore, the court addressed concerns about the evidentiary value of the intercepted calls, noting that issues of admissibility and authenticity are matters for trial, not for determination at the investigation stage.
The judgment affirms the investigative agencies' authority to collect evidence necessary for criminal investigations and underscores the balance between individual rights and public interest in the judicial process.
Bottom Line:
Voice sampling - Compelling an accused to provide voice samples does not amount to testimonial compulsion and does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 CrPC, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, Section 311A CrPC, Section 349 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2829496
