Voice Samples is not the violation of Article 20(3)

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran that Magistrates can direct collection of voice samples and other physical evidence from both accused and witnesses, clarifying that such material evidence does not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The Court relied on the 2019 precedent in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, extending the Magistrate’s authority to all “persons,” not just accused. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Rahul Agarwal v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.(2025). 

What was the Background of Rahul Agarwal v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.(2025) Case? 

• A young married woman, aged twenty-five years, died on the sixteenth of February, 2021. The death occasioned allegations of harassment and torture perpetrated at the matrimonial residence. Conversely, a counter-allegation was raised that the deceased woman, along with her parents, had misappropriated cash and jewellery belonging to the family of the husband. 
• A cousin of the husband of the deceased lodged a criminal complaint before the police authorities. The deceased's father and mother were arrayed as accused persons in the said complaint. 
• Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer ascertained that the second respondent had acted in the capacity of an agent on behalf of the father of the deceased. The second respondent allegedly threatened a witness who claimed to possess knowledge of an extortion demand made by the father through the agency of the second respondent. This conduct formed the basis for further investigative action. 
• The Investigating Officer, in pursuit of investigation into the alleged offence, sought collection of a voice sample from the second respondent for comparative analysis with recorded conversations. With this objective, a petition was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate's Court. The Magistrate, by an order dated as per Annexure P13, granted permission for the collection of the voice sample from the second respondent. 
• The second respondent preferred a challenge to the Magistrate's order before the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court, by the impugned order, set aside the Magistrate's order on the ground that a similar legal question had been referred for consideration before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The High Court declined to follow the existing precedent of the Supreme Court pending resolution of the Larger Bench reference. 
• The reference made to the Larger Bench regarding the permissibility of voice sample collection was subsequently closed on default, rendering it non-actionable. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had entertained a purely academic question already covered by binding precedent and refused to follow such precedent on the erroneous premise that a Larger Bench reference was pending. The reference had been closed on default, thereby depriving it of legal efficacy. 
• The Court observed that furnishing a voice sample constitutes material evidence rather than testimonial evidence and is not compelled testimony in the constitutional sense. Voice samples stand on the same footing as fingerprints, handwriting, signature impressions, and DNA evidence. Such material evidence is wholly innocuous and cannot, by itself, incriminate a person; it merely serves as a basis for comparison with materials discovered during investigation. 
• The Court observed that Article 20(3) protects any person, whether accused or witness, from compulsion to be a witness against themselves. However, this protection is confined to testimonial compulsion. Furnishing physical or material evidence does not constitute testimonial compulsion and therefore does not fall within Article 20(3). Actual incrimination, if any, results from comparison of the sample with investigative materials, not from the mere furnishing of the sample itself. 
• The Court observed that Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2019), deliberately employed the term "a person" rather than confining the power to the accused alone. This conscious choice indicated that the rule against self-incrimination applies equally to any person, whether accused or witness. The precedent granted magistrates authority to direct voice sample collection despite the absence of explicit provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• The Court observed that the foundational principle in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, (1961), determined that specimen handwriting, signatures, and finger impressions do not constitute testimony. These materials are wholly innocuous for comparison purposes and do not by themselves incriminate a person. The same reasoning applies with equal force to voice samples, particularly given technological advancement. 
• The Court observed that the magistrate's power to direct voice sample collection was subsequently addressed through the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Section 349 of the BNSS now specifically empowers a magistrate to direct collection of voice samples, thereby providing statutory sanction to the power previously recognised by judicial precedent. 
• The Court observed that whether the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, or the BNSS, 2023, applies, the magistrate possesses authority to direct furnishing of voice samples. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, such authority flows from the binding precedent in Ritesh Sinha. Under the BNSS, 2023, such authority is explicitly conferred by Section 349. In either case, the direction does not infringe upon any constitutional protection against self-incrimination. 

What is Right Against Self-incrimination ? 

• Overview: 
  • The right against self-incrimination operates on the legal maxim "nemo tenetur prodere accusare seipsum," establishing that no person can be compelled to make self-incriminating statements.  
  • This fundamental legal principle protects individuals from being forced to provide information or testify against themselves in criminal cases and is enshrined as a constitutional safeguard in jurisdictions including India and the United States. 
• Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India: 
  • Article 20(3) prohibits any person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against themselves.  
  • This constitutional safeguard operates as an absolute bar against testimonial compulsion resulting in self-incrimination. 
• Key Distinctions: 
  • The critical distinction determining violations of Article 20(3) lies between testimonial evidence and material evidence.  
  • Testimonial evidence comprises statements, admissions, and confessions representing the contents of a person's mind. Material evidence consists of physical manifestations such as fingerprints, handwriting samples, voice samples, and DNA profiles.  
  • Material evidence, being wholly innocuous and unchangeable, does not constitute testimony and therefore does not fall within Article 20(3)'s protection. 
• Application to Compelled Samples: 
  • Compelling a person to furnish physical samples such as voice recordings or fingerprints does not constitute a violation of Article 20(3). The furnishing itself is not self-incriminatory; incrimination occurs only upon comparison with investigative materials.  
  • The incrimination flows from independent comparative analysis, not from the compelled provision of the sample. 
  • Consequently, the protection is designed to prevent ransacking of a person's mind through forced testimony, not to prohibit production of neutral physical evidence. 
• Landmark Precedents: 
  • In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978), the Supreme Court affirmed that the right extends to both accused persons and witnesses.  
  • In Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), the Court held that voice samples constitute material evidence, and their compelled collection does not infringe Article 20(3) protections, establishing that the principles protecting self-incrimination are compatible with modern forensic evidence collection.