Author: Shreya Sharma

Supreme Court: Magistrate’s Directions for Voice Samples of Witnesses, Not Just Accused, Don’t Violate Article 20(3)

By

The Supreme Court has ruled that Magistrates may direct witnesses, not only accused persons, to provide voice samples for investigation, holding that such directions do not violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Restoring a Magistrate’s order and overturning a High Court decision, the Court said voice samples are non-testimonial evidence used solely for comparison. Citing Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kathi Kalu Oghad, the bench noted that Section 349 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita now expressly empowers Magistrates to obtain voice samples from any person during investigations.

Rights of Couples Who Froze Embryo Before Act Remain Intact

By

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that couples who created and froze embryos before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 took effect on January 25, 2022, have the right to proceed with surrogacy despite later age restrictions. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan held that Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Act does not apply retrospectively. Justice Viswanathan’s concurring opinion stated that fertilisation and freezing mark the point where reproductive rights crystallise, protected under Article 21. The Court allowed eligible couples to continue their surrogacy process, distinguishing pre-Act actions from future regulations.

Supreme Court to Hear MP’s Defence of 27% OBC Quota

By

Madhya Pradesh is defending its decision to increase OBC reservation from 14% to 27%, taking total reservations to 73%, above the 50% ceiling set by the Supreme Court. The state cites the large OBC population and their underrepresentation in public services. The case raises legal questions about balancing affirmative action (Articles 15(4) and 16(4)) with equality principles. Key precedents, including *Indra Sawhney* and *M. Nagaraj*, guide how reservations can exceed 50% only in extraordinary circumstances, supported by data on backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency. The Supreme Court will examine these issues in its upcoming hearing.