4 min readNew DelhiDec 9, 2025 12:01 PM IST
First published on: Dec 9, 2025 at 05:00 AM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday directed Deputy Inspector General of Police, Basti (Uttar Pradesh), Sanjeev Tyagi, to provide his voice sample for forensic examination over an old audio clip in which he purportedly makes derogatory remarks against Muslims.
The court also quashed proceedings against a Dehradun resident, Islamuddin Ansari (73), who had forwarded the clip to Tyagi, who was then the Superintendent of Police in Bijnor, in March 2020, and asked him to verify if it was his voice. The Uttar Pradesh police had later launched criminal proceedings against Ansari.
The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran termed the police action against Ansari as “totally an abuse of their authority and also the process of the Court”. “We make it clear that if any attempt is made/ action taken by any of the authorities to harass or exert any sort of pressure on the petitioner (Ansari), the petitioner is at liberty to directly move an appropriate application in the present case itself,” it said.
“…We are more concerned with the background in which such a situation arose. The petitioner (Ansari) having asked the Superintendent of Police (Tyagi), and rightly so before making a formal complaint, as to whether the voice purported to be his, disclosing that he had used some very objectionable language, was never replied to. We direct that the voice sample of the then Superintendent of Police, Mr Sanjeev Tyagi, who has been promoted and currently posted as DIG, Basti Range, Uttar Pradesh, for being confirmed with the clip which was forwarded to him by the petitioner, be sent for examination. The said FSL examination would be done at the State FSL, in the State of Telangana, Hyderabad,” the court said.
The bench also directed Ansari to provide the relevant audio clip/ link to the concerned FSL within three weeks. The court directed the Telangana FSL director to “get the examination done under his direct supervision” and to submit the report in a sealed cover by January 31, 2026.
The Uttar Pradesh counsel told the bench that the state has filed a petition before the concerned court seeking withdrawal of the case against Ansari.
The case dates back to March 2020, when Ansari had forwarded the audio file to Tyagi. While Ansari received no response, an FIR was registered at Kotwali Shahar police station in Bijnor on March 29, 2020, against unknown persons for allegedly spreading rumours which would incite feelings of communal enmity, slapping charges under IPC Section 505 (statements conducing public mischief) and IT Act Section 67 (transmitting obscene material in electronic form).
Listing Ansari’s phone number, the FIR noted that “the Epidemic Act is also in force due to corona disease” and thus “immediate action is necessary against this mobile holder, otherwise peace and public order may be affected due to malicious sentiments in the Muslim community.”
Ansari has alleged that the same day, a police team forcibly entered his residence in Dehradun and took him to Bijnor, where he was interrogated for over five hours, and his phone and wallet were taken away.
A chargesheet was filed before a magistrate court on July 7, 2020, which named Ansari. The chargesheet claimed that a complaint was received at the Kotwali police station against Ansari’s phone number for creating “rebellion by inciting religious sentiments in the Muslim community by sending messages/ posts”.
The court took cognizance and issued summons on September 30, 2021. Ansari then went to the Allahabad High Court, where he challenged the summons and sought quashing of the case. On August 13 this year, the HC rejected Ansari’s plea, following which he moved the Supreme Court.
Ansari, represented by advocates Aadil Singh Boparai and Amarjeet Singh, had submitted before the SC that the criminal proceedings against him were “nothing but an attempt to harass” him, “a clear instance of malicious prosecution”, as a “counterblast to (Ansari’s) act of questioning a police officer regarding derogatory remarks against a minority community.”
In his petition, Ansari said that he had “merely forwarded an audio clip privately to the SP for verification and did not publish or circulate the same in the public domain, hence the ‘publication’ requirement under Section 505 IPC is not satisfied.”
The SC will hear the case next on January 12, 2026.
Quashes case against man who flagged it. 
Share
