The Delhi High Court ruled that compelling an individual to provide a voice sample for comparison with intercepted calls does not violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that voice samples are "material evidence" for comparison and are innocuous, not constituting testimonial compulsion. While acknowledging the fundamental right to privacy, the court noted it is not absolute and can yield to legitimate state interests in crime investigation. This ruling came in response to a petition challenging a trial court's order for voice samples in a corruption case.