On 13th October 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India gave its judgment in the case of Rahul Agarwal v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (2025 INSC 1223). The Court, consisting of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Justice K. Vinod Chandran, held that a Judicial Magistrate can order any individual, including a witness, to give a voice sample for investigative purposes. This ruling confirmed that such a directive is not unconstitutional under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which safeguards persons from self-incrimination.
The case arose out of the death of a 25-year-old married woman on 16 February 2021, following which there were allegations of harassment and counter allegations of embezzlement between her family members and her husband’s family members. During the course of investigation, it was claimed that the second respondent, on behalf of the deceased’s father as his agent, had intimidated a witness in the case. The Investigating Officer requested the jurisdictional Magistrate to enable him to obtain the voice sample of the respondent for comparison. The Magistrate granted the prayer, but this order was subsequently set aside by the Calcutta High Court, holding that the matter was pending before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. Aggrieved appellant, filed an appeal before the hon’ble Supreme Court.
The main question before the Court was whether, under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), a Magistrate could legally compel an individual to give a voice sample in the absence of a clear statutory provision thereof, and whether such compulsion violated the right against self-incrimination. The respondent contended that as the Cr.P.C. did not contain a provision authorizing voice sampling, the Magistrate had overstepped his powers. But the appellant relied upon the previous judgment in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court held that a Magistrate was able to direct voice sampling even in the absence of explicit statutory support.
In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had been in error in not following the binding precedent set in Ritesh Sinha, where it was noted that the reference to a Larger Bench had already been closed. The Court highlighted that voice samples, similar to fingerprints or handwriting, are types of physical evidence which are not testimonial compulsion and hence outside the ambit of Article 20(3). Referring to the previous case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (AIR 1961 SC 1808), the Court reaffirmed that the act of submitting a specimen does not, in itself, criminalize a person but only furnishes material for comparison on investigation.
In addition, the Court mentioned that the newly introduced Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, specifically incorporates Section 349, authorizing Magistrates to order individuals to give voice samples. The Court made it clear that even prior to this statutory provision, the rule established in Ritesh Sinha had already acknowledged such powers.
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s direction and reinstated the Magistrate’s order for the respondent to provide a voice sample. The ruling upholds the judiciary’s resolute stance that investigation agencies can utilize scientific devices like voice matching without breaching constitutional protections.
This choice promotes procedural transparency and harmonizes prevailing practice under the Cr.P.C. with the specific provisions now codified in the BNSS, thus enhancing the balance between adequate investigation and safeguarding individual rights.