1. Challenge to an order for collection of voice sample for comparison with incriminatory evidence under the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1794
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4693 of 2023
Decided On : 15-05-2023
Important Points
The Supreme Court affirmed that a Judicial Magistrate is empowered to order the collection of a voice sample for crime investigation. Such an order does not violate the fundamental right to privacy, as privacy is not absolute and must yield to compelling public interest.
Subject
Criminal Law - Evidence
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.142, Art.20(3)
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 - Article 142 of the Constitution of India - Right to privacy - Collection of voice sample ordered for comparison with incriminatory evidence - The court held that until explicit provisions are established under the Cr.P.C., a Judicial Magistrate has the power to order the collection of voice samples for investigation purposes based on judicial interpretation. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Privacy rights - The right to privacy can be overridden by compelling public interest as determined in prior judgments. The court refrained from further discussion on this issue as it was not specifically argued. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order for voice sample collection, arguing it violated privacy rights without governing rules. The court referenced a previous ratio to support the legality of such orders by Magistrates.
Findings of Court:
The impugned judgment ordering voice sample collection was upheld.
Issues: Whether the collection of a voice sample violates privacy rights and the extent of judicial power to authorize such collections without explicit statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that privacy rights are not absolute and can be superseded by public interest, thus allowing Magistrates to order voice samples pending legislative provisions.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
(B) Privacy rights - The right to privacy can be overridden by compelling public interest as determined in prior judgments. The court refrained from further discussion on this issue as it was not specifically argued. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order for voice sample collection, arguing it violated privacy rights without governing rules. The court referenced a previous ratio to support the legality of such orders by Magistrates.
Findings of Court:
The impugned judgment ordering voice sample collection was upheld.
Issues: Whether the collection of a voice sample violates privacy rights and the extent of judicial power to authorize such collections without explicit statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that privacy rights are not absolute and can be superseded by public interest, thus allowing Magistrates to order voice samples pending legislative provisions.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, AOR, Mr. Tejas Barot, V.C.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, AOR, Mr. Tejas Barot, V.C.
Table of Contents
2. Collection of voice samples without notified rules or standard operating procedures under the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 violates the right to privacy. (Para 1 )
3. The right to privacy is not absolute and must yield to compelling public interest in the investigation of crimes. (Para 2 , 4 )
4. Judicial Magistrates possess the power to order voice sample collection for crime investigation until explicit provisions are incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed; orders for collection of voice sample upheld. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Does a judicial order to provide a voice sample violate the fundamental right to privacy?
The fundamental right to privacy is not absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest, such as the investigation of a crime. (Para 2 )
7. Do Judicial Magistrates have the power to order the collection of voice samples in the absence of explicit statutory provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Yes, until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate is conceded the power to order a person to give a voice sample for crime investigation. (Para 2 , 3 )
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr.Tejas Barot, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that his voice sample is ordered to be collected for the purpose of comparison with the incriminatory voice sample available with the police. According to the counsel, unless rules are framed and appropriate standard operating system is notified under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 read with the Rules 2022, the collection of voice sample would impeach on the right of privacy of the accused.
2. In the above context, we have the benefit of reading the ratio in ' Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ' reported in 2019(8) SCC 1 where in the context of voice sample collected for the purpose of investigation, the three Judges Bench of this Court had held:-
"26. Would a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, is the next question. The issue is interesting and debatable but not having been argued before us it will suffice to note that in view of the opinion rendered by this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of M.P., Gobind v. State of M. P. and another and the nine Judge's Bench of this Court in K.S.Puttaswamy (Privacy 9) v. Union of India the fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and but must bow down to compelling public interest. We refrain from any further discussion and consider it appropriate not to record any further observation on an issue not specifically raised before us.
27. In the light of the above discussions, we unhesitatingly take the view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. Such power has to be conferred on a Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We order accordingly and consequently dispose the appeals in terms of the above."
3. The above would indicate that the Magistrate is given the power to order for collection of voice sample for the purpose of investigation of a crime until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Cr.P.C. by the Parliament. Such direction was issued by invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
4. Supported by the above ratio, we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Special Court ordering the accused to give his voice sample to facilitate investigation of the crime.
5. The special leave petition accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
