Context:

The Supreme Court recently held that judicial magistrates have the power to direct witnesses, not only the accused, to give voice samples. The Court ruled that such direction does not violate the protection against self‑incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

About Article (20(3)) of the Indian Constitution:

Article (20(3)) of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right protecting against self-incrimination, meaning no person accused of an offense can be forced to be a witness against themselves.

·        This right is based on the maxim "nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum" ("no man is obliged to be a witness against himself") and ensures that confessions or evidence are not obtained through coercion.

·        The protection applies to those formally accused and is not absolute, as it doesn't extend to compulsory production of material objects or bodily evidence like fingerprints. 

Key observation by SC:

The Court classified voice samples as material evidence, akin to fingerprints, handwriting, or DNA, rather than testimonial evidence. This distinction is crucial as it determines the applicability of Article 20(3).

• • The judgment extends the power to direct voice samples to witnesses, not just accused individuals.
  • This is based on the Court's interpretation of the term "person" in the context of investigation, which includes both accused and witnesses.
  • ·        The Court emphasized that providing a voice sample does not amount to testimonial compulsion. The incriminating element, if any, arises only after comparison with other evidence, not from the act of providing the sample itself.

Implications:

• • The judgment expands investigative powers by allowing magistrates to compel both accused and witnesses to provide voice samples. It clarifies that such samples are material evidence, not testimonial, and thus do not violate Article 20(3).
  • This position is now legally reinforced by Section 349 of the BNSS, 2023, providing much-needed statutory backing. It also strengthens the foundation for using other non-testimonial evidence like fingerprints, handwriting, and DNA.

Limitations:

·         Potential misuse by police if voice samples are demanded without clear justification.

·         Risk of violating privacy (Article 21) if proper judicial safeguards are not followed.

·         If the sample requires the person to say meaningful content (not neutral words), it may become testimonial, triggering Article 20(3).

·         Practical issues like forensic backlog, poor chain of custody, or lack of comparison evidence may reduce effectiveness and fairness.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's judgment marks a significant development in India's criminal jurisprudence, balancing the need for effective investigation with constitutional safeguards. By empowering magistrates to direct voice samples from both accused and witnesses, the Court has provided a valuable tool for criminal investigations while ensuring that individual rights are protected. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the administration of justice in India.