An FIR was filed against the Appellant, Ritesh Sinha and his associate, alleging that he was involved in collection of monies from different people on the promise of jobs in the police. The associate was arrested and a mobile phone was seized from him. In order to verify whether the conversations recorded on the phone were between the associate and the Appellant, the Investigating Authority filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur (CJM) requesting the court to summon the Appellant for giving his voice sample. This order of the CJM was challenged by the Appellant under Section 482 of the Cr. P C before the High Court of Allahabad, which dismissed the appeal. The matter came before the two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, which gave a split opinion, and referred the matter to a three Judge Bench.

The Court referenced the precedent set in State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, which clarified that Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, protecting against self-incrimination, only applies to testimonial evidence. Voice samples, being material evidence, do not fall under this protection. Therefore, compelling an accused to provide a voice sample is not a violation of their constitutional rights.

Recognizing the absence of a specific statutory provision for ordering voice samples, the Court drew inspiration from Lord Denning's approach in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. vs. Asher. It filled this legislative gap by granting Judicial Magistrates the power to order voice samples, acting under Article 142 of the Constitution.

While acknowledging the fundamental right to privacy, the Court emphasized its non-absolute nature, especially when balanced against compelling public interest. However, as this point was not extensively argued, the Court did not delve deeper into its implications in the specific context of voice sample collection.