https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7810-0819
![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The decision of a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Ritesh Sinha v State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC 1 judicially created the power of a magistrate to compel an accused person to submit voice samples for verification during a criminal investigation. The judgment is internally inconsistent in the sense that it abides by precedent where convenient, and disregards it where not. The Court's reliance on Article 142 of the Constitution of India (the power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice) to judicially legislate a compulsive power is also inappropriate and unconstitutional. In its haste to arm the State with another tool of investigation, the Court elevates the ordinary needs of criminal investigation to the standard of ‘compelling public interest’, without providing any apparent justification, and more importantly, without considering that such an exercise is appropriately the domain of the legislature.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Mr Shreedhar Kale and Mr Kunal Ambasta for their insights on some of the arguments made in this comment, and the anonymous reviewer and the editorial board for their comments and suggestions. All errors are the author's own.
Notes
1 (2019) 8 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India (SCI)).
2 ‘No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.’
3 Constitution, Article 142(1):
The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
4 Ritesh Sinha v State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 2 SCC 357 (SCI) (Ritesh Sinha (2013)).
5 ibid [44], [51].
6 Ritesh Sinha (2013) (n 4) [65].
7 AIR 1961 SC 1808 (SCI).
8 ibid [10].
9 Oghad (n 7) [11].
10 Herbert L Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford University Press 1968). The view that criminal justice systems are binary, displaying either an ideology of ‘crime control’ or of ‘due process’ is a limited frame of analysis. However, for the specific purpose of this case note, the model serves as an adequate lens through which to assess underlying principles.
11 Aparna Chandra and Mrinal Satish, ‘Criminal Law and the Constitution’ in Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press 2016) 795.
12 Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (HarperCollins Publishers India 2019) 349.
13 Abhinav Sekhri, ‘The right against self-incrimination in India: the compelling case of Kathi Kalu Oghad’ (2019) 3 Indian Law Review 180, 201.
14 Packer (n 10).
15 Chandra and Satish (n 11) 794.
16 AIR 1965 SC 1251 (SCI).
17 CrPC, s 91(1).
18 ibid s 93(1)(a).
19 Choksi (n 16) [1].
20 ibid [32].
21 ibid [30], [31].
22 ibid [32].
23 ibid [19].
24 Oghad (n 7) [11], [12].
25 Choksi (n 16) [32].
26 ibid [24].
27 ibid [25].
28 (1980) 1 SCC 264 (SCI).
29 ibid [8], [10], [11].
30 See M/S Sri Vari ITI.of Manaloor v G Karikalan (2011) SCC OnLine Mad 1448 (Madras High Court); H Mohamed Ibrahim Kaleel v The State (2008) SCC OnLine Mad 3 (Madras High Court); Manjula Ramlal Barot v Ishwarlal P Barot & Ors 2006 CriLJ 3779 (Bombay High Court); Prakash Kaur v Everest Construction Company CC No 415/1/2000 (Delhi District Court).
31 (1978) 2 SCC 424 (SCI).
32 ibid [57].
33 Nandini Satpathy (n 31) [57].
34 (2010) 7 SCC 263 (SCI).
35 Bhatia (n 12) 356; Selvi (n 34) [103], [185].
36 Selvi (n 34) [182].
37 ibid [185], [226].
38 Mike Redmayne, ‘Rethinking the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination’ (2006) 27 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 209, 218–224.
39 Bhatia (n 12) 362.
40 Selvi (n 34) [182].
41 Gautam Bhatia, ‘The Supreme Court on Mandatory Voice Samples – II: The Rise of the Executive Court’ (Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 4 August 2019) <indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/the-supreme-court-on-mandatory-voice-samples-ii-the-rise-of-the-executive-court/> accessed 24 June 2020.
42 Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (SCI).
43 AIR 1970 SC 564 (SCI).
44 AIR 1978 SC 597 (SCI).
45 Puttaswamy (n 42) [260].
46 Ritesh Sinha (n 1) [26].
47 Abhinav Sekhri, ‘Guest Post: The Supreme Court on Mandatory Voice Samples – I: Some Glaring Conceptual Errors’ (Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 4 August 2019) <indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/guest-post-the-supreme-court-on-mandatory-voice-samples-i-some-glaring-conceptual-errors/#comments> accessed 24 June 2020.
48 Bhatia (n 41).
49 AIR 1963 SC 996 (SCI).
50 See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra [1966] 3 SCR 744 (SCI); AR Antulay v RS Nayak AIR 1988 SC 1531 (SCI).
51 Ritesh Sinha (n 1) [26].
52 ibid [22].
53 See Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 (SCI).
54 Ritesh Sinha (n 1) [22].
55 Constitution, Article 21.
56 Abhinav Chandrachud, ‘Due Process’ in Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press 2016) 777; K M Sharma, ‘“Law and Order” and Protection of the Rights of the Accused in the United States and in India: A General Framework for Comparison’ (1972) 21 Buffalo Law Review 361, 390–391.
57 Puttaswamy (n 42) [419].
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Shraddha Chaudhary
Shraddha Chaudhary is a Lecturer at Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat and a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge.