In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that collecting voice samples from an accused without their consent does not violate constitutional protections, including the right to privacy and the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. The decision, delivered by Justice Sameer Jain, was issued in the case of Badri Prasad Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6518/2024) on November 14, 2024.
The ruling comes as a significant precedent in balancing individual rights with investigative necessities, particularly in cases involving corruption and misuse of public office.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a corruption investigation led by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against Badri Prasad Meena and Manoj Kumar Meena, both senior auditors accused of demanding and accepting a one percent commission from contractors for clearing their bills. The allegations led to the filing of an FIR under Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7-A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The investigating agency sought to compare voice recordings, obtained during the investigation, with the accused’s voice samples. To this end, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur, issued an order compelling the accused to provide voice samples for forensic examination. The accused challenged this order in the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that the directive violated their fundamental rights.
Legal Issues Raised
The petitioners challenged the Magistrate’s order on several grounds:
1. Violation of Article 20(3):
The accused contended that the collection of voice samples amounted to testimonial compulsion, infringing their protection against self-incrimination.
2. Breach of Right to Privacy:
They argued that compelling them to provide voice samples was a violation of their fundamental right to privacy.
3. Judicial Precedents:
The petitioners relied on prior rulings that highlighted the principle of consent in collecting evidence from accused individuals, asserting that their refusal to provide voice samples should not lead to any adverse inference.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sameer Jain addressed the arguments raised by the petitioners and provided a detailed analysis of constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as judicial precedents:
– On Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3)):
The court held that providing a voice sample does not constitute “testimonial compulsion” since it involves the collection of a physical trait, not a communicative act. Justice Jain stated, “Article 20(3) protects against being compelled to be a witness against oneself, but furnishing a voice sample is akin to providing fingerprints or DNA, which are non-testimonial in nature.”
– On Right to Privacy:
The court emphasized that the right to privacy, while fundamental, is not absolute and must give way to compelling public interest. Justice Jain cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ritesh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) and Pravinsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (2023), observing that investigative necessities can override privacy concerns in cases involving significant public interest.
– On Investigative Necessity:
The judgment underscored that voice samples are crucial for fair and impartial investigations, especially in corruption cases. Justice Jain remarked, “Voice is a unique identifier that aids in verifying identity through scientific methods, making it an essential tool for modern forensic analysis.”
– Statutory Authority:
The court highlighted Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023, which explicitly empowers Magistrates to order the collection of specimen samples, including voice samples, from accused persons for investigative purposes.
Ruling and Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that:
1. Voice samples can be collected without violating the right against self-incrimination or the right to privacy.
2. The Magistrate’s authority to order voice sample collection is well-established under the B.N.S.S., 2023, provided the reasons are recorded in writing.
3. The refusal to provide voice samples cannot be used to draw adverse inferences unless expressly permitted by law.
The court affirmed that collecting voice samples ensures a fair investigation and upholds the balance between individual rights and the larger public interest in addressing corruption.
Parties and Representation
Petitioners:
Advocates D.K. Garg and Rahul Sharma represented petitioners Badri Prasad Meena and Manoj Kumar Meena.
Respondent:
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Shyam Singh Yadav.
