Manipur violence: Supreme Court moots taking former CM Biren Singh's voice sample to compare with audio clip

The audio clip allegedly implicating former Manipur Chief Minister (CM) N Biren Singh in the communal violence of 2023 has been edited and it would be difficult to give a conclusive finding on whether the clip was authentic or whether the voice heard in the clip was that of Biren Singh, the Supreme Court was informed on Monday..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Vinod Chandran was hearing a plea filed by the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust, which had submitted the audio clips recorded by a whistleblower.In Agugust 2025, the National Forensic Science University (NFSU) at Gujarat was assigned the task of verifying the clip's genuineness and finding out whether the voice heard on the clip was that of Biren Singh.The NFSU reported that the audio clip was an edited version even if there was no deepfake or AI-based editing. It, therefore, expressed difficulties in giving a conclusive finding on whether the clip was authentic or whether the voice heard in the clip was that of Biren Singh..Taking note of the same, the Court today asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati to get instructions on what NSFU may require further to verify the audio clip, including whether a direct voice sample from Singh would be necessary. "The learned ASG shall ascertain as to why it was not possible for the university to undertake comparison of Exhibit A with the admitted voice recordings in Exhibit B, at least in relation to the untampered portions of the recordings. The learned ASG shall also ascertain whether the university stands by its earlier report, wherein it was stated that the admitted voice recordings taken from Doordarshan were also tampered. The learned ASG shall further ascertain whether it requires a direct voice sample of the individual (Singh) in question for the purpose of comparison," the Court said. .Notably, the Court also reiterated concerns that the 48-minute audio clip provided by a whistleblower in the matter was a truncated or cut version of the original recording."Why don't you give full recording?" the Court asked counsel representing the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust today.The trust's counsel, advocate Prashant Bhushan, replied that the original 54-minute audio was cut down to 48 minutes to protect the identity of the person who recorded the clip."What had happened was, there was a meeting of the Chief Minister with certain Meitei leaders. One of them recorded the entire conversation on his phone. In that recording, his own voice was also present. He then edited his voice (out) and produced 48 minute clip."Bhushan suggested that the full, uncut clip could be be provided if measures are taken to keep the whistleblower's identity confidential."They had removed some parts that will identify the person. I will ask my (source) as to whether the person who recorded the clip is willing to (give the full clip)… because obviously that would disclose his identity because his voice is also there. I can ask my source whether that gentleman recorded it (can give the full recording), but that will bring him into the line of fire. I seek one week’s time. If his confidentiality is to be maintained, he is ready. But as soon as his voice comes on record they will be able to identify him," Bhushan said.However, Bhushan also maintained that substantial portions of the recording, where former Chief Minister Singh is heard making important statements, remain in the submitted recording."The context can be clearly understood from those parts," Bhushan added."It’s a private meeting, and when a person records it without the consent of others, what evidentiary value will it have?" Justice Chandran then questioned.Bhushan replied that the audio tapes still raised serious issues. .The Court eventually asked the Trust to find out whether the full audio tape can be provided for forensic analysis."The learned counsel for the petitioner shall ascertain whether the full audio clip, without any tampering or modification, can be provided to the university for comparison," the Court directed.The matter will be taken up next on April 30..[Live Coverage]