The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling, asserting that an order directing an individual to provide voice samples for investigative purposes does not infringe upon their fundamental right against self-incrimination, guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment, pronounced by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, also clarified that such a directive does not violate a person's right to privacy, emphasizing that this right, while fundamental, is not absolute and must yield to legitimate state interests, particularly in the prevention and investigation of crime. This pronouncement came in the high-profile case involving Kanpur businessman Moin Akhtar Qureshi. Qureshi had challenged a trial court order from October 26, 2021, which mandated him to provide voice samples to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The samples were sought for comparison with intercepted telephone conversations recorded between 2013 and 2014, which formed the basis of corruption-related allegations against him. Qureshi's legal team argued that compelling a voice sample amounted to "testimonial compulsion" and violated his right to privacy, further contending that the intercepted calls were "stale" and illegally obtained. However, the High Court rejected these arguments, stating that voice samples are merely "material evidence" used for comparison and do not, by themselves, constitute oral or documentary testimony that could incriminate an accused. The court highlighted that the constitutional protection under Article 20(3) applies only to testimonial acts that convey personal knowledge, not to physical evidence like voice samples. Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed Qureshi's plea and vacated an interim order that had previously prevented the CBI from using the voice sample report. This ruling reinforces the investigative agencies' power to gather non-testimonial evidence crucial for crime detection, balancing individual rights with the broader public interest in effective law enforcement.