Ordering person to give voice sample does not violate Article 20(3): Delhi High Court in Moin Qureshi case

The Delhi High Court recently held that ordering a person to provide voice samples for comparison with intercepted phone calls does not violate their fundamental rights against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. 

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that such an order does not violate a person’s right to privacy either. 

“The direction to provide a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution as it does not constitute testimonial compulsion…While the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and must yield to legitimate State interests, such as the prevention and investigation of crime,” the Court said. 

The High Court made the observation while rejecting a plea by Kanpur businessman Moin Akhtar Qureshi challenging a trial court order directing him to provide voice samples to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for comparison with intercepted telephone conversations recorded in 2013–14. 

Notably, Qureshi’s name had surfaced in the CBI v CBI fight between the agency’s then Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana.  

The present case stems from surveillance conducted by the Income Tax Department between October 2013 and March 2014, followed by searches at Qureshi’s premises in February 2014. Based on intercepted calls and Blackberry Messenger communications, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) lodged a complaint, leading to the CBI registering an FIR in 2017 under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Qureshi argued that the intercepted calls were “stale”, illegally obtained and inadmissible due to non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines on telephone interception and the absence of mandatory certification under the Evidence Act. He also contended that ordering a voice sample amounted to testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

However, the Court rejected the contention and vacated the interim order of November 2021 in which the CBI was ordered to keep the report of the voice sample in a sealed cover and to not use the same against Qureshi. 

“Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or abuse of process in the impugned Order dated 26.10.2021 of the Ld. Special Judge. The Petition is devoid of merit and is hereby, dismissed,” the Court ordered. 

Advocates RK Handoo, Yoginder Handoo and Gaurav Vishwakarma appeared for Qureshi. 

CBI was represented through Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Ripudaman Bhardwaj and Advocate Amit Kumar Rana.

[Read Judgment]