In a significant ruling reinforcing accountability within the police force and reiterating constitutional safeguards for citizens, the Supreme Court of India has ordered a forensic voice examination of a senior Uttar Pradesh Police officer accused of using a communal slur against Muslims. Simultaneously, the Court quashed all criminal proceedings initiated against the complainant, a senior Muslim citizen, holding that the State’s actions reflected a gross abuse of police authority.
The Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran passed the order on Monday in the case titled Islamuddin Ansari vs State of UP, observing that the prosecution of the petitioner was entirely unwarranted and had the characteristics of a retaliatory counterblast.
Background of the Case: Officers Accused of Communal Slur
The controversy began when the petitioner, Islamuddin Ansari, confronted then Superintendent of Police Sanjeev Tyagi regarding the circulation of a purported audio clip. In the clip, the officer was allegedly heard making derogatory remarks against the Muslim community.
Before filing any formal complaint, Ansari had reached out to the SP asking for confirmation on whether the voice in the clip was indeed his. Instead of responding, the police booked Ansari on allegations of circulating hate speech and initiated criminal proceedings against him.
After his appeals before the trial court and High Court failed, Ansari approached the Supreme Court, which issued notice on his plea. The State of Uttar Pradesh subsequently informed the Court that it wished to withdraw the complaint—raising questions about the legitimacy of the earlier prosecution.
Supreme Court: “Abuse of Authority and Process of Court”
The Supreme Court took strong exception to the manner in which the proceedings were initiated against Ansari. The Bench held that the FIR and subsequent charge sheet represented a clear misuse of police powers.
Quoting the order, the Court noted:
“Having regard to the aforesaid, we find it to be totally an abuse of their authority and also the process of the Court by the Police in initiating the proceeding.”
The Court underscored that Ansari had merely sought clarification from the SP before making any formal complaint—an action which, according to the Bench, was entirely legitimate. The police failure to respond, coupled with the initiation of prosecution, reflected a retaliatory mindset.
The conduct of the local police was described as “wholly unacceptable.”
All Criminal Proceedings Against Petitioner Quashed
Given these findings, the Supreme Court quashed the entire criminal case against Ansari. The State’s decision to withdraw the complaint further strengthened the petitioner’s claim that the FIR was filed to intimidate him.
This ruling is significant for its emphasis on protecting citizens who raise legitimate questions against public officials, especially when the issue concerns allegations of hate speech.
Court Orders Voice Sample of UP DIG for Forensic Examination
One of the most consequential parts of the judgment is the Court’s directive for a forensic voice test of DIG Sanjeev Tyagi, now posted as DIG of the Basti Range.
To ensure complete impartiality, the Court directed that Tyagi’s voice sample be tested by the Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory (TSFSL) in Hyderabad, under the direct supervision of its Director.
The order clearly mandates:
- DIG Tyagi must appear before the TSFSL within three weeks to provide his voice sample.
- The Director of TSFSL will be personally responsible for ensuring that the test is carried out by competent and unbiased experts.
- The petitioner must provide the original audio clip or the link for comparison.
- The forensic report is to be submitted to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover by January 31, 2026.
This direction is notable because voice sampling orders often raise concerns about fairness, manipulation, or local influence. By shifting the examination to a different State, the Court aimed to eliminate any possibility of pressure from Uttar Pradesh authorities.
Supreme Court Issues Warning Against Harassment of Petitioner
Given the sensitive nature of the allegations and the power imbalance between a senior police officer and a civilian petitioner, the Court explicitly warned authorities against any harassment, retaliation, or pressure tactics.
The Bench stated:
“If any attempt is made or action taken by any of the authorities to harass or exert any sort of pressure on the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to directly move an appropriate application in the present case itself.”
This stern warning reflects the Court’s awareness of patterns where complainants against police officers face reprisal actions. The order aims to safeguard the petitioner throughout the duration of the forensic inquiry.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This ruling has far-reaching implications across several legal domains:
1. Abuse of Police Powers
The Supreme Court’s findings reinforce that the criminal process cannot be used to settle scores or shield officials from scrutiny. FIRs filed as “counterblasts” violate constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
2. Voice Sampling and Forensic Integrity
Transferring the voice test to a lab in another State highlights the judiciary’s increasing reliance on scientific evidence and its sensitivity to conflicts of interest in police-led investigations.
3. Protection of Citizens Against Hate Speech
The allegations involved a senior police officer using a communal slur—a matter of serious public concern. The Court’s decision to pursue an independent forensic test underscores its commitment to addressing hate speech even when it involves powerful officials.
4. Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms
By making the Director of TSFSL a respondent and assigning personal responsibility, the Court sought to ensure transparency and accountability during the forensic examination.
Representation in the Case
- For the Petitioner:
Aadil Singh Boparai, Abhishek Dubey, Prakruthi Jain, Shruti Agarwal, Amarjeet Singh, and Satvinder Singh. - For the State of Uttar Pradesh:
Abhishek Saket, Sudeep Kumar, Manisha, Rupali, and Nidhi Singh.
Next Hearing
The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on January 12, 2026.
Also Read
IndiGo Meltdown Deepens: DGCA Freezes Crew Duty Rules Amid Nationwide Flight Disruptions
