The Supreme Court of India has issued a groundbreaking ruling, which states that a judicial magistrate is authorized to order an accused to provide voice samples, even without their consent in the context of a criminal investigation. This precedent-setting judgement was made under the provisions of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
The court has urged the Parliament to implement necessary modifications in the Code of Criminal Procedure to enforce this new rule. Until these changes are put into effect, the power to order a voice sample will remain with the magistrate.
The Law Commission of India’s 87th Report classifies a voice print as a “visual recording of voice”, akin to fingerprints. Just as each individual has unique fingerprints, everyone has a distinct voice – attributable to factors such as vocal cavities and articulates.
Historically, the Indian Supreme Court has held that drastic interpretations in the Criminal Procedure Code – specifically regarding whether a court can command a person to provide a voice sample to the police – should be determined by the legislature.
Fundamental Rights Vs Public Interest
In a related observation, the court noted that the fundamental right to privacy (Article 21) cannot be deemed absolute and must yield to compelling public interest. The court did not comment directly on Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, which safeguards an accused from being forced to testify against themselves. However, this new directive empowers investigators to compel an individual to provide his voice sample during a criminal inquiry.
For comparative purposes, the Chief Justice equated a voice sample to other evidence like specimen handwriting or impressions of fingers, palm, or foot all of which can be collected by the police at the time of inquiry.
These pieces of evidence, by themselves, do not incriminate the accused person. Similarly, voice samples would be used for comparison with other voices to ascertain if they match and belong to the same person.
Understanding Article 142
Article 142 grants the Supreme Court discretionary powers. It states that the Supreme Court, when exercising its jurisdiction, may pass any decree or order necessary for delivering complete justice in any matter before it.
| Article | Description |
|---|---|
| Article 142 | Provides the Supreme Court with discretionary power to pass any order or decree necessary for delivering complete justice. |
| Article 21 | Protects life and personal liberty of all persons. It safeguards the right to privacy. |
| Article 20(3) | Protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself. |
Article 142: A Mixed Bag
In the early evolution of Article 142, both the general public and the legal fraternity praised the Supreme Court for leveraging this law to ensure justice for various marginalized sections of society and for environmental protection.
In the Union Carbide case pertaining to the Bhopal gas tragedy victims, the Supreme Court proclaimed itself above the laws formed by the Parliament or the State legislatures. The court stated that for providing complete justice, it could override laws set by Parliament.
However, in the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, it was held that Article 142 cannot replace existing law. It can only supplement the law.
Despite the beneficial aspects of Article 142, there have been numerous instances in recent years where the judiciary’s intrusion into areas traditionally reserved for the legislature has raised questions about the separation of powers, a fundamental principle of the Constitution.
Future Implications and Recommendations
Given this context, the Supreme Court needs to reflect on whether the use of Article 142 should be regulated by strict guidelines or referred to a Constitution Bench consisting of at least five judges. This would ensure that the exercise of discretion is the result of several judicial minds working on issues with widespread impact.
It is also recommended that whenever the court invokes Article 142, the government should publish a white paper examining the positive and negative effects of the judgement after a six-month period or so from its issuance.
