Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Wednesday, 23 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2016-07-29 partly_allowed

Sudhir Chaudhary Etc. Etc vs State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: 3 — D.Y. Chandrachud

In Brief

The Supreme Court addressed the fairness of voice sample collection from accused persons in a criminal extortion case. While the appellants had consented to providing voice samples for comparison with a disputed recorded conversation, they objected to reading sentences from allegedly incriminatory material. The Court held that although consent to voice sample collection cannot be withdrawn, the procedure must be fair under Article 21. The Court directed that the text to be read shall contain only individual words (not complete sentences) from the disputed conversation, as needed for proper spectrographic analysis, and that collection must occur at the forensic laboratory under expert supervision to ensure impartiality.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Procedure Fundamental Rights Voice Forensics Evidence Criminal Investigation Article 20(3) Article 21

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login