https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277575 Compelling an accused to provide a voice sample was held by the majority to be non-testimonial physical evidence, so it does not violate Article 20(3) protection against self-incrimination. On the power to authorise collection, the majority read the authority into the statutory scheme of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and the Code of Criminal Procedure through purposive interpretation, treating voice sampling as within the enlarged concept of measurements and physical examination. The dissent disagreed and said such compulsion requires express legislation. The Bench delivered divided opinions and referred the matter to a larger Bench. en-us Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:58:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277575 Compelling an accused to provide a voice sample was held by the majority to be non-testimonial physical evidence, so it does not violate Article 20(3) protection against self-incrimination. On the power to authorise collection, the majority read the authority into the statutory scheme of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and the Code of Criminal Procedure through purposive interpretation, treating voice sampling as within the enlarged concept of measurements and physical examination. The dissent disagreed and said such compulsion requires express legislation. The Bench delivered divided opinions and referred the matter to a larger Bench. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277575