Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.P. Shameem Ahamed, Akhil Philip Manithottiyil.
For the Respondents: Sri. Vipin Narayan.

Key Points: - The judgment holds that a Judicial Magistrate can be conceded power to order a person to give a voice sample for investigation until Parliament enacts explicit provisions, via interpretation under Article 142 (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It discusses the lack of explicit CrPC provisions and supports voice sample collection under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 as interpreted and integrated with CrPC amendments (!) (!) (!) . - It cites that the fundamental right to privacy is not absolute and may bow to compelling public interest in the context of voice sample collection, referencing Ritesh Sinha, Modern Dental College, Gobind, and K.S. Puttaswamy jurisprudence (!) (!) (!) . - It confirms the order of the Magistrate directing voice/sample collection was upheld, and the petition was dismissed, with no infirmity found in the impugned judgments (!) (!) (!) . - The decision reiterates that while specimen handwriting and other measurements have specific statutory grounding, the voice sample power arises through judicial interpretation under Article 142 until statutory provisions are enacted (!) (!) (!) .

How to determine whether a Magistrate can order a person to give voice samples for investigation under Article 142 of the Constitution?

What is the scope of the power to collect voice samples in the absence of explicit CrPC provisions, as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142?

What are the limits of privacy rights when compelling voice samples for investigation?