The Delhi High Court has ruled that directing an individual to provide voice samples for comparison with intercepted phone calls does not violate the fundamental right against self-incrimination or the right to privacy. The decision clarifies the legal standing of voice samples as evidence in criminal investigations and underscores the balance between individual rights and legitimate state interests in preventing and investigating crime.

A bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the verdict on December 24, 2025, while hearing the petition of Kanpur-based businessman Moin Akhtar Qureshi. Qureshi had challenged an October 2021 trial court order directing him to provide voice samples to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for comparison with phone intercepts recorded between October and December 2013. The intercepted calls, recorded by the Income Tax Department, allegedly implicated him as a middleman in corruption involving certain public servants.

In his petition, Qureshi contended that the call recordings constituted stale material, having been intercepted more than a decade ago, and that the interceptions themselves were illegal. Furthermore, he argued that compelling him to provide voice samples amounted to testimonial compulsion, violating his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. He also invoked his right to privacy, asserting that the directive infringed upon this fundamental right.

However, the CBI, represented by counsel Ripudaman Bhardwaj, opposed the petition. The agency argued that the recordings had been lawfully obtained under proper authorisation by the IT department. Bhardwaj emphasized that the voice samples were sought purely for identification purposes, for comparison with intercepted conversations, and did not amount to oral or documentary testimony against the accused.

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s directive, clarifying the nature of voice samples in criminal investigations. Justice Krishna observed that voice samples constitute “material evidence” rather than testimonial evidence and are therefore innocuous in nature. Unlike testimony, which may implicate a person, a voice sample in itself cannot incriminate the individual; it merely allows investigators to compare and verify the authenticity of intercepted communications.

“The direction to provide a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution as it does not constitute testimonial compulsion,” the court noted. The ruling further explained that while the right to privacy is fundamental, it is not absolute and must yield to legitimate state interests, including crime prevention and investigation. Voice samples, according to the court, fall within this legitimate state interest and can be lawfully collected under judicial supervision.

The court highlighted the precautions taken by the trial court in ensuring that Qureshi’s rights were protected. The judge overseeing the case had carefully limited the content of the text to be read for the voice sample. Importantly, the text excluded any incriminating portions from the disputed telephone conversations and included only neutral words necessary for spectrographic comparison. This safeguard, the court noted, ensures that the individual is not compelled to provide evidence that could directly incriminate them.

The case against Qureshi has a long history, rooted in the so-called CBI versus CBI dispute involving then-director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana. The intercepts recorded by the IT Department in 2013-14 allegedly revealed Qureshi’s role as a middleman in transactions involving public officials. Based on this material, the CBI registered a case against him in 2017 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Qureshi’s challenge before the Delhi High Court sought to suppress the voice sample directive, arguing both procedural and substantive rights violations. He contended that the samples were being requested for calls recorded illegally and at a time when he had no knowledge or consent. Additionally, he claimed that providing the sample would violate his constitutional protection against self-incrimination, a safeguard designed to prevent an accused from being compelled to provide evidence that could be used against them.

The court, however, differentiated between testimonial evidence and physical or material evidence. While the former includes statements, confessions, or documents that can directly incriminate an individual, the latter encompasses objects or samples collected for forensic or investigative purposes. In this context, the court observed, a voice sample is analogous to other material evidence, such as fingerprints or handwriting samples, which are routinely used for comparison and identification.

“Such samples are considered ‘material evidence’ for comparison. They are not oral or documentary testimony that, by itself, tends to incriminate the accused,” the court stated. It clarified that the voice sample is innocuous on its own; only the comparison with intercepted material during the investigation may produce incriminating results. Since this does not constitute testimonial compulsion, Article 20(3) is not engaged.

Regarding privacy concerns, the court noted that while the right to privacy is fundamental, it is not absolute. State actions that are justified, proportionate, and necessary for public interest or crime prevention can override privacy claims. The collection of voice samples for forensic comparison falls within the ambit of legitimate investigative action, especially when safeguards are in place to prevent misuse or overreach.

The court’s ruling thus provides clarity on a critical legal question that has implications for criminal investigations across India. By affirming that voice samples are material evidence and not testimonial compulsion, the decision reinforces the state’s ability to collect biometric or forensic data for investigative purposes, provided adequate procedural safeguards are maintained.

The ruling is expected to guide lower courts and investigative agencies on handling similar cases in the future, particularly in scenarios where voice comparisons are necessary to establish links between suspects and intercepted communications. The judgment underscores the principle that the rights of individuals must be balanced with the broader public interest in effective crime detection and prevention.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court has held that compelling an individual to provide voice samples for comparison with intercepted calls does not violate the right against self-incrimination or the right to privacy. The verdict emphasizes that voice samples are considered material evidence, do not constitute testimonial compulsion, and can be lawfully collected for investigative purposes under appropriate judicial safeguards. The ruling clarifies the legal standing of voice sample collection in criminal investigations and strengthens the procedural framework for agencies seeking such evidence while ensuring the rights of the individual are protected.