Order for voice sample doesn’t violate right to privacy, says HC

The high court observed that voice samples in a sense resemble fingerprints and handwriting

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that judicial order compelling a person to give voice sample does not violate right to privacy.

The high court bench of justice Avneesh Jhingan upheld the additional sessions judge, SBS Nagar, decision of allowing the vigilance bureau to take voice samples of two accused for comparing with their recorded calls.

The matter in court had been brought by two people working at Banga tehsil office. The accused, both typists, were allegedly collecting money for getting the sale deeds registered from the tehsildar and other revenue officials, vigilance bureau had told the court, adding that after taking approval, mobile phones used by the petitioners were tapped and later a case registered against them. The VB then sought permission from the trial court to take voice samples for comparison, which was allowed.

This decision of the trial court was challenged in the high court, arguing that it was in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and infringes the right of privacy. Article 20(3) of the Constitution states that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

The high court observed that voice samples in a sense resemble fingerprints and handwriting. “The samples are collected after having permission in accordance with the law. The sample taken itself would not be an evidence, rather they are for comparing the evidence already collected,” the court said, adding that the infringement of the fundamental right to privacy cannot be raised to create a bubble to scuttle the investigation, nullifying the evidence collected by merely denying that the voice of the tapped phone calls is not of the petitioners and there being no comparables.

“With the advancement of technology, the modes of communication are changing. To keep pace with the change, new technology is required to be used for collecting and comparing evidence. One method being tapping of communication devices but after compliance with the procedure laid down. It is in that context that taking of voice samples is necessitated,” the bench further observed.

The sample taken itself would not be an evidence, rather they are for comparing the evidence already collected THE HIGH COURT