The Calcutta High Court refused to entertain TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee’s plea challenging a magistrate’s order directing him to provide a voice sample in the DJ remark case. The Court heard arguments on BNSS provisions, investigation rights, and the need for evidence collection.
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee challenging a lower court’s order directing him to provide a voice sample in connection with the alleged ‘DJ remark’ case.
Banerjee’s counsel argued before the Court that the magistrate’s direction was “perverse” and inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It was submitted that the High Court had already granted Banerjee interim protection from coercive action until July 31, but this fact was not brought to the attention of the magistrate while passing the order.
The counsel further contended that since Banerjee had not denied that the voice in question belonged to him, there was no justification for requiring him to submit a fresh voice sample. He questioned, “what is the necessity of taking a sample?”
The State opposed the plea, arguing that the challenge was merely an attempt to avoid cooperating with the ongoing investigation. It argued that the investigation agency had the right to collect evidence necessary for the probe. The prosecution maintained that a voice sample is a legitimate investigative tool and that the accused cannot decide how the investigating agency should collect evidence.
While hearing the matter, the Calcutta High Court refused to entertain the plea. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh observed that another bench was already dealing with a related petition arising from the same FIR, and hearing the matter separately could lead to conflicting orders. The court directed that the issue should be considered by the bench already handling the connected proceedings.
The High Court also declined to grant immediate relief against the voice sample order. The court noted that the connected writ petition was already pending and judicial propriety required the related matters to remain before the same bench.
Background of the Case
The case relates to a remark allegedly made by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP and party national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee during an election campaign in West Bengal. The remark, popularly referred to as the “DJ remark” case, became controversial after opponents alleged that the statement carried an intimidating or provocative message.
During the election campaign, Banerjee allegedly referred to DJs playing loud music after the election results, a statement that was interpreted by complainants as a warning directed towards political opponents. A complaint was subsequently filed, alleging that the remark was inappropriate and had the potential to create tension.
Following the complaint, a case was registered at the cyber police station under the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate. The matter was later taken over by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of West Bengal for further investigation.
As part of the investigation, the CID sought permission from a court to collect Abhishek Banerjee’s voice sample. Investigators wanted to conduct a forensic comparison between the voice in the alleged speech recording and Banerjee’s sample to establish authenticity and assist the probe.
The investigating agency approached the Bidhannagar court seeking an order for recording the voice sample. The court allowed the request and directed Banerjee to appear before the authorities for the procedure in the presence of a magistrate and forensic experts.
Banerjee challenged the lower court’s direction before the Calcutta High Court. His legal team argued that obtaining a voice sample was unnecessary because he had not denied that the voice in the alleged recording belonged to him. The defence questioned the need for such a procedure and challenged the legality of the magistrate’s order.
The dispute raises broader legal questions regarding the power of investigating agencies to obtain voice samples, the evidentiary value of forensic voice comparison, and the balance between individual rights and the needs of criminal investigation. The final outcome will depend on the continuing proceedings and investigation.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE