Kerala High Court Upholds Authority of Special Court to Direct Voice Sample Recording in Corruption Case

Court rules that compelling accused to give voice samples does not violate Article 20(3) of Constitution; consent and prior hearing not mandatory before recording voice samples

Thrissur, Kerala – In a significant judgment dated November 30, 2021, the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by Mahesh Lal N.Y, the second accused in a vigilance corruption case, challenging the issuance of a court notice directing him to provide a voice sample for forensic analysis. The case arose from allegations of bribery involving officials of the Choondal Grama Panchayat and a contractor demanding money to grant a building completion certificate.

The petitioner contended that the direction to give a voice sample violated his constitutional protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which safeguards against self-incrimination, and argued that the Special Court had erred in not granting him an opportunity to be heard before issuing the order.

The court, presided over by Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi, examined the scope of Article 20(3) and relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), where it was held that compelling an accused to give voice samples does not amount to self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The High Court noted that the consent of the accused is not a prerequisite for recording voice samples as such samples are akin to physical evidence rather than testimonial evidence.

Regarding the petitioner’s contention about the lack of a hearing, the court clarified that the question of hearing arises only if the accused’s consent is required, which is not the case here. The court also referred to its earlier ruling in Daisy v. State of Kerala (2020), affirming that no legal bar exists for the court to direct voice sample collection without prior notice.

Additionally, the court observed that the petitioner was aware of prior orders passed by the Special Court directing him to appear for voice sample recording and had sought adjournments, indicating no denial of procedural fairness.

The judgment emphasized the importance of adopting advanced scientific methods in criminal investigations, citing the Supreme Court’s directive in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) to encourage modern investigative techniques for effective crime detection.

Consequently, the High Court held that the direction to record the petitioner’s voice sample was lawful, necessary for investigation, and did not infringe upon constitutional rights. The petition seeking to quash the notice and related proceedings was dismissed.

This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s endorsement of scientific methods in crime investigation and clarifies the legal position on voice sample collection vis-à-vis constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

Statutory provisions

Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1917354