Constitution of India, 1950
Article 20(3)—Order permitting the SIT to obtain voice sample of petitioner—Challenged—Directions for providing voice sample were issued during the pendency of the investigations, but the petitioner, by moving various applications, in addition to other applications, successfully avoided complying with that order—A judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice did not violate his fundamental right to privacy, including under Article 20(3) of the Constitution—Purpose of taking a voice sample is to investigate a crime, but it would be incorrect to interpret this as meaning that the voice sample would have to be taken only within the time the charge-sheet is filed and not thereafter, as a clever accused, like the present petitioner, would be able to defeat the right of the investigating agencies to obtain a voice sample, even though the court had authorized the same—Orders of court cannot be rendered nugatory in this fashion—Impugned orders are neither erroneous nor perverse nor have resulted in miscarriage of justice, which would have justified interference with the same—Petition dismissed.
[Paras 16 to 18]