Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,2019

Introduction 

This landmark judgment by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi established judicial authority to compel voice samples during criminal investigations. The case arose from a split verdict requiring constitutional interpretation regarding Article 20(3) of Constituion protections and judicial powers. The Court balanced individual rights against investigative needs, filling a legislative gap through judicial interpretation while calling for explicit statutory provisions. 

Facts of the Case 

• On December 7, 2009, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Saharanpur filed an FIR alleging Dhoom Singh and appellant Ritesh Sinha collected money promising police jobs. 
• Dhoom Singh was arrested with a mobile phone containing recorded conversations that investigating authorities wanted to verify were between Singh and the appellant. 
• Police applied to Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking summons for appellant's voice sample for comparison with recorded conversations. 
• CJM Saharanpur ordered appellant to appear before investigating officer and provide voice sample on January 8, 2010, which was challenged unsuccessfully in Allahabad High Court. 
• Two-judge Supreme Court bench delivered conflicting opinions, necessitating reference to larger bench for authoritative pronouncement. 

Issues 

• Whether Article 20(3) of the Constitution, protecting accused persons from being compelled to witness against themselves, extends to voice sample collection during investigation. 
• Whether magistrates possess implied power under existing Criminal Procedure Code provisions to authorize voice sample recording without explicit statutory provision. 
• Whether courts can exercise judicial interpretation to fill statutory gaps or must await specific legislative enactment for such investigative powers. 
• Balancing fundamental rights of accused persons against legitimate needs of criminal investigation and evidence collection. 

Court Observations 

• Court unanimously held Article 20(3) prohibition applies only to testimonial evidence based on personal knowledge, not mechanical processes like voice samples, following State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad precedent. 
• Voice samples constitute material evidence for comparison purposes, similar to handwriting or fingerprints, being "wholly innocuous" and "unchangeable" rather than self-incriminatory testimony. 
• Court noted 2005 Criminal Procedure Code amendments added provisions for medical examination, handwriting samples, but conspicuously omitted voice samples despite Law Commission's 1980 recommendation. 
• Court emphasized "procedure is handmaid, not mistress of justice" and constitutional courts must address contemporary realities, filling statutory gaps when imminent necessity demands judicial intervention. 
• Court invoked Article 142 constitutional powers and ejusdem generis interpretation principle, citing Lord Denning's approach of "ironing creases" in legislation to prevent justice from being sacrificed to procedural technicalities. 
• While not extensively argued, Court acknowledged fundamental right to privacy must yield to compelling public interest in criminal investigation, referencing K.S. Puttaswamy precedent. 
• Court granted judicial magistrates implied power to order voice samples until explicit statutory provisions are enacted, balancing investigative needs against individual rights through judicial interpretation.