LEGAL ADMISSIBILITY OF VOICE RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IN THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY – ENABLED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
AUTHOR – MONALISHA R A, LLM STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, TNDALU , CHENNAI
BEST CITATION – MONALISHA R A, LEGAL ADMISSIBILITY OF VOICE RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IN THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY – ENABLED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (13) OF 2025, PG. 156-170, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
INTRODUCTION
The growth of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has transformed criminal investigations, with voice recognition technology becoming an important forensic tool[1]. It assists in authenticating recorded conversations, identifying suspects, and securing digital evidence[2]. However, its admissibility raises questions of reliability, privacy, and constitutional protections.
In India, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Act, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 recognise electronic records[3], but challenges persist regarding tampering, accuracy, and safeguards against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh held that compelling a voice sample is not testimonial compulsion[4], yet the absence of procedural standards leaves uncertainties. Comparative jurisprudence in the United States and United Kingdom underscores the need for scientific validation and transparency[5]. This article undertakes a doctrinal study of the admissibility of voice recognition evidence in ICT-enabled investigations, highlighting statutory provisions, judicial approaches, and the need for reform.
[1] R. Togneri & J. Pullella, “An Overview of Speaker Identification: Accuracy and Robustness Issues” (2011) 1 IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine 23.
[2] Lawrence M. Solan & Peter M. Tiersma, Speaking of Crime (University of Chicago Press 2005).
[3] The BSA Act, sec 62 & 63; IT Act, 2000 sec 2&4
[4] Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 1.
[5] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); R v. Robb [1991] 93 Cr App R 161 (CA).