<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily stayed the directions issued by a trial court against Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, asking him to submit his voice sample in the 2007 hate speech case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra issued notice on Khan\u2019s petition and gave him protection against submitting his voice sample till further orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The matter was mentioned before the Apex Court on Tuesday by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appearing for Khan, the Senior Counsel requested urgent hearing on the matter on the grounds that despite the filing of a special leave petition by Khan, the special judge had declined to postpone the collection of his voice sample due today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In October 2022, a trial court in Uttar Pradesh had ordered Khan to provide his voice sample in a hate speech case, for comparison with a CD-recorded speech he delivered during a public gathering in Rampur in August 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The verdict was upheld by the Allahabad High Court on July 25, 2023 on the grounds that Khan\u2019s sole legal contention centered on the lack of certification for electronic evidence in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra rejected Khan\u2019s petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Case title: Mohd Azam Khan vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr)<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily stayed the directions issued by a trial court against Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, asking him to submit his voice sample in the 2007 hate speech case. The Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra issued notice on Khan\u2019s petition and gave him protection against submitting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":120103,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,64],"tags":[6193,52629,20232,127727],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2020\/10\/17145759\/Azam.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/318719"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=318719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/318719\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/120103"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=318719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=318719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=318719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}