The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday issued detailed directions for a forensic voice comparison in a criminal matter involving Islamuddin Ansari. The Court asked the Telangana Forensic Science Laboratory (TGFSL) in Hyderabad to conduct the test without insisting on procedural formalities such as a “letter of advice,” making it clear that the exercise was being carried out strictly under judicial orders.
The case was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
Background of the Case
The matter arises out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14997 of 2025 filed by Islamuddin Ansari, challenging a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated August 13, 2025.
Earlier, by an order dated December 8, 2025, the Supreme Court had quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 6196 of 2021, which stemmed from a case registered at Kotwali Shahar Police Station in Bijnor district.
However, an issue relating to an audio clip allegedly linked to Respondent No. 2 remained under consideration. The Court had previously directed that a voice comparison test be conducted.
Letter from Forensic Lab and Court’s Clarification
During the hearing, the Bench referred to a letter dated January 12, 2026, received from the Director of the Telangana Forensic Science Laboratories (TGFSL), Red Hills, Hyderabad. The lab had stated that although the petitioner’s mobile phone had already been sent by the Bijnor Police, a “letter of advice” and transcription of the audio clip were required to proceed with the examination.
The Bench clarified that the forensic examination was being carried out pursuant to the Court’s own order, not at the request of the police.
“The requirement of a letter of advice and communicating the same to this Court is not necessary,” the Bench observed, adding that the lab must proceed in terms of the Court’s directions without raising objections about procedural formalities.
Petitioner to Identify Audio Clip
Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the seized mobile phone may contain several audio clips. Therefore, the specific clip that needs to be tested must first be identified.
Taking note of this submission, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Director, TGFSL, Hyderabad, on March 9, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. He will assist the laboratory in locating the particular audio clip meant for comparison.
The Bench also directed Respondent No. 2 - whose voice is alleged to be in the clip - to appear at the same time and place so that a fresh voice sample can be recorded.
The laboratory will then compare the selected clip from the petitioner’s phone with the voice sample of Respondent No. 2.
No Procedural Objections to Be Raised
In firm terms, the Court made it clear that the Director of TGFSL “shall not raise any objection” regarding the absence of a formal letter of advice. The judges underlined that no additional formalities, typically required in other cases, would apply here since the exercise was directly ordered by the Court.
The Bench also stressed that the earlier order dated December 12, 2025, along with the present directions, must be followed “in its entirety.”
Examination of Possible Deletion
Another concern raised during the hearing was whether any content had been deleted from the petitioner’s mobile phone after it was seized by the police.
The Court left it to the Director of TGFSL to examine this aspect and report whether anything appears to have been deleted after the date of seizure. The petitioner has been directed to inform the lab about the date of seizure for this purpose.
Further, the Bench directed that the transcript of the audio clip be prepared and included as part of the forensic report.
The final report is to be submitted to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover.
“We are confident and we trust that the Director shall not give us any opportunity to question the modality, authenticity and the impartiality of the test,” the Bench remarked.
Read also:- Supreme Court Transfers ESIC Construction Workers Coverage Cases to Itself for Uniform Hearing
State’s Application Disposed Of
The State had filed an interlocutory application stating that due to an inadvertent recording by counsel, it appeared that authorities had sought withdrawal of prosecution, whereas it was in fact an application for further investigation.
The Court noted that since it had already quashed the entire criminal proceedings by its earlier order dated December 8, 2025, the issue stood closed. The interlocutory application was accordingly disposed of.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on March 24, 2026.
Case Title: Islamuddin Ansari vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 14997/2025
Decision Date (Order): 12 February 2026
