The Delhi High Court has ruled that directing an accused to provide voice samples does not amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3). The Court also held that the right to privacy is not absolute and must yield to legitimate criminal investigations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that directing a person to provide voice samples for comparison with intercepted phone calls does not violate their constitutional rights under Article 20(3) against self-incrimination. The court also clarified that such an order does not infringe on an individual’s right to privacy.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that providing a voice sample is non-testimonial evidence and, therefore, falls outside the protection offered by Article 20(3).
“While the Right to Privacy is fundamental, it is not absolute and must yield to legitimate state interests, such as crime investigation and prevention,”
the judgment noted.
Case Background
The case involved Kanpur businessman Moin Akhtar Qureshi, who challenged a trial court order directing him to submit voice samples to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). These samples were to be compared with telephone conversations intercepted in 2013–14.
Qureshi’s name had appeared earlier in the high-profile CBI internal conflict between then-Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana. The legal proceedings trace back to surveillance conducted by the Income Tax Department from October 2013 to March 2014, followed by searches of Qureshi’s premises in February 2014.
Based on intercepted calls and BlackBerry Messenger communications, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) complained, leading the CBI to file an FIR in 2017 under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
Arguments and Court Ruling
Qureshi argued that the intercepted calls were stale and illegally obtained, claiming that ordering a voice sample amounted to testimonial compulsion, prohibited under Article 20(3).
The Delhi High Court, however, rejected his arguments, stating there was no abuse of process or legal error in the trial court’s order. The Court also lifted a previous interim order that had required the CBI to keep Qureshi’s voice sample report sealed.
“The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed,”
the Court ruled, reinforcing the principle that voice samples are not testimonial evidence and can be lawfully obtained for criminal investigations.
Appearance:
For Moin Akhtar Qureshi: Advocates RK Handoo, Yoginder Handoo and Gaurav Vishwakarma
For CBI: Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Ripudaman Bhardwaj and Advocate Amit Kumar Rana
Case Title:
Moin Akhtar Qureshi v Central Bureau of Investigation
CRL.M.C. 2867/2021 & CRL.M.A. 18029/2021
READ JUDGMENT