Magistrate Can Order an Accused to Give a Voice Sample Until Parliament Legislates: Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha

In a 2009 case of collecting money with false promises of police jobs, the police seized a phone from a co-accused and wanted to compare a recorded conversation with the appellant's voice; the Saharanpur CJM summoned him to give a voice sample on 8 January 2010, and the Allahabad High Court upheld the order (paras 2-3). A two-judge Bench of this Court split on whether a Magistrate could authorise a voice sample without an express provision in the CrPC, and the matter was referred (paras 4-8).

Both judges on the earlier Bench had answered the Article 20(3) question against the accused, following State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad: the protection covers only testimonial compulsion, and a specimen, like handwriting, is not testimony (paras 6, 9). On the second question, Desai J. had read voice samples into 'such other tests' in Section 53, while Aftab Alam J. held that only legislation could authorise them (paras 7-8). The 2005 amendments to Sections 53, 53A and 311A of the CrPC widened medical examination and specimen signatures but did not mention voice samples, and the Law Commission had recommended an amendment in 1980 (paras 11-14). Legislative silence may reflect caution, but where a gap in the statute calls for a temporary remedy to make it workable, judicial interpretation becomes inevitable (paras 15, 20). Courts must respond to existing realities and fill such a void on the principle of imminent necessity, with a call to the legislature to act promptly (para 21). Privacy is not absolute and must yield to compelling public interest, a point the Court noted without deciding (para 24).