The Supreme Court is considering whether former Manipur CM N Biren Singh’s voice sample should be taken to verify an edited audio clip linked to the 2023 Manipur violence. The Court asked forensic experts what more is needed to confirm the authenticity of the recording.
The Supreme Court of India was informed on Monday that the audio clip which allegedly implicates former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in the 2023 communal violence appears to have been edited, and therefore it is difficult to give a final conclusion on whether the clip is authentic or whether the voice in the recording actually belongs to Biren Singh.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Vinod Chandran was hearing a petition filed by the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust. The organisation had submitted certain audio clips which were reportedly recorded by a whistleblower and were claimed to contain statements made by Biren Singh during a private meeting with some Meitei leaders.
Earlier, in August 2025, the Supreme Court had assigned the National Forensic Science University (NFSU), Gujarat, the task of examining the audio clip to verify whether the clip was genuine and whether the voice heard in the clip was that of Biren Singh.
After examining the clip, the NFSU submitted its report stating that the audio clip was an edited version. However, the university also clarified that there was no deepfake or AI-based editing found in the recording. Despite this, because the clip had been edited, the forensic experts said it was difficult to give a conclusive finding on whether the clip was authentic or whether the voice in the clip was that of Biren Singh.
After taking note of the report, the Supreme Court asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to obtain instructions on what more would be required by the forensic university to verify the audio clip properly. The Court also asked whether a direct voice sample of Biren Singh would be required for proper comparison.
The Court said,
“The learned ASG shall ascertain as to why it was not possible for the university to undertake comparison of Exhibit A with the admitted voice recordings in Exhibit B, at least in relation to the untampered portions of the recordings. The learned ASG shall also ascertain whether the university stands by its earlier report, wherein it was stated that the admitted voice recordings taken from Doordarshan were also tampered. The learned ASG shall further ascertain whether it requires a direct voice sample of the individual (Singh) in question for the purpose of comparison,”
The Supreme Court also expressed concern that the audio clip submitted by the whistleblower was not the full recording but only a shortened version. The Court noted that the original recording was 54 minutes long, but only a 48-minute clip was submitted.
The Court questioned the petitioner and said,
“Why don’t you give full recording?”
In response, counsel for the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust, advocate Prashant Bhushan, explained that the original recording was edited to protect the identity of the whistleblower who recorded the meeting. He told the Court that the whistleblower’s own voice appeared in the original recording, and therefore those parts were removed before submitting the clip.
Bhushan explained the situation and said,
“What had happened was, there was a meeting of the Chief Minister with certain Meitei leaders. One of them recorded the entire conversation on his phone. In that recording, his own voice was also present. He then edited his voice (out) and produced 48 minute clip.”
Bhushan further told the Court that the full recording could be provided if proper protection was given to the whistleblower so that his identity remains confidential and he does not face any danger.
He told the Court,
“They had removed some parts that will identify the person. I will ask my (source) as to whether the person who recorded the clip is willing to (give the full clip)… because obviously that would disclose his identity because his voice is also there. I can ask my source whether that gentleman recorded it (can give the full recording), but that will bring him into the line of fire. I seek one week’s time. If his confidentiality is to be maintained, he is ready. But as soon as his voice comes on record they will be able to identify him,”
Bhushan also argued that even though the clip was edited, the important parts of the conversation were still present in the submitted recording and the context of the conversation could still be understood.
He told the Court,
“The context can be clearly understood from those parts,”
During the hearing, Justice Vinod Chandran also raised a legal question about the evidentiary value of such a recording, especially when the recording was done secretly without the consent of the persons present in the meeting.
Justice Chandran asked,
“It’s a private meeting, and when a person records it without the consent of others, what evidentiary value will it have?”
In response, Bhushan submitted that even if there were legal questions about admissibility, the audio recordings still raised serious issues which required proper investigation.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner organisation to find out whether the full and original audio recording could be provided to the forensic university for proper scientific examination and voice comparison.
The Court directed,
“The learned counsel for the petitioner shall ascertain whether the full audio clip, without any tampering or modification, can be provided to the university for comparison,”
The Supreme Court has now listed the matter for further hearing on April 30, where it will consider the next steps after receiving further clarification regarding the original audio recording and forensic requirements.
Click Here to Read More Reports On CCTV Cameras
