In Brief
The Supreme Court considered whether a Judicial Magistrate can order an accused to provide a voice sample for criminal investigation and whether such compulsion violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution (protection against self-incrimination). The Court held that voice samples are non-testimonial and thus not protected by Article 20(3). Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis to Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court ruled that a voice sample can be included within "such other tests." Consequently, a Judicial Magistrate has implied power to authorize voice sample collection during investigation, a power exercised through judicial interpretation under Article 142 until Parliament enacts explicit statutory provisions.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.