Published On: October 4th 2025
Authored By: Shivangi
Aryans College of Law, Patiala University
Abstract
The use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) is growing considerably in areas such as law enforcement, surveillance and aviation and commonly as an identification tool. It is emerging globally and become an integrated part of government and private enterprise. Although the technology promises greater efficiency and increased security, it poses numerous legal and ethical issues, especially pertaining to constitutional rights such as the right to privacy. This article defines FRT, analyzes a case study from the country, contrasts international approaches to regulation, and offers policy suggestions to balance responsible use of FRT with constitutional safeguards.
Introduction
For public safety, travel verification systems, the FRT become most reliable tool, the common places are at airports securities, banking and for maintaining police records and in our daily for opening our mobile phones. It is so commonly in use nowadays that it raises concerns about the protection of our privacy rights and the absence of clearly defined legal frameworks for such systems, further poses a great danger to privacy rights of individuals. The Supreme Court of India in its judgement recognizes privacy to be a constitutional right in 2017, legally requires FRT systems to be grounded in the principles of legality and necessity.
Meaning
Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) refers to automated systems that help identify or verify individuals by analyzing their facial features. It leverages computer vision and AI to map and analyze facial features, creating a unique digital identity for comparison. While biometric systems like fingerprints are very common nowadays, FRT is uniquely spreading widely because it can be deployed without the subject’s knowledge.
Under Facial Recognition Technology, a camera takes a picture or video of a person’s face. The computer looks at the special features of the face viz., the distance between the eyes, the shape of nose, or the curve of lips. Then it turns these features into a unique face print (just like a fingerprint, but for the face). This face print is compared with stored face prints in a database to find a match or confirm the person’s identity.
A facial Recognition Technology (FRT) is used in many areas viz., unlocking phones, checking people at the airport, but it also raises many privacy as well as security issues because it can track people without them knowing.
The National Automated Facial Recognition System (NAFRS) and also the State-level surveillance projects in India are rely upon the FRT.
The Indian privacy framework, shaped by Puttaswamy, mandates the state interference with privacy must be authorized by law, pursue a reasonable aim, and be specifically responsible for that aim.
Related Case Study – India
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017)
The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India is one of the most significant constitutional judgements in India. It established that the Rights to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution. The case began when Justice K.S. Puttaswamyi, a retired High Court Judge, challenged the Aadhaar scheme introduced by the government of India. Aadhaar collects biometric and personal information such as fingerprints and iris scans. Puttaswamy argued that without proper safeguards, such large-scale data collection could violate people’s privacy and could be misused for surveillance.
A nine-judge bench heard the matter. Puttaswamy’s side argued that privacy is an essential part of human dignity and personal liberty. The GOI’s side argued that the Constitution does not explicitly mention privacy as a separate right and the Aadhaar helps in preventing fraud and delivering benefits efficiently.
On 24th August 2017, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous verdict declaring that the Right to Privacy is protected under Article 14 (RTE), Article 19 (RTF) & Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The ruling has increased awareness about the need for a strong data protection laws in India, especially as technology like Facial Recognition Systems becomes more and more common.
In conclusion, the Puttaswamy judgement confirmed that privacy is an inseparable part of freedom and dignity, protecting citizens from unwarranted interference in their personal lives. Whether it is about one’s lifestyle, body, or digital data, this case ensures that neither the Government nor the private bodies can intrude without lawful, justified, and limited reasons.
Telangana’s AI Surveillance Network
Telangana—and particularly Hyderabad—has emerged as one of the world’s most heavily surveilled regions. The state reportedly has over 600,000 CCTV cameras, most concentrated in Hyderabad.
This extensive camera deployment, combined with facial recognition capabilities, has led activists and civil society groups to raise alarms. They have documented that it can feel “almost impossible to walk down the street without risking exposure to facial recognition” and have described the city as being “on the brink of becoming a total surveillance city.”
In 2021, activist S.Q. Masood filed a legal challenge after being stopped by police who, during an identity check, asked him to remove his mask and took his photo without his consent—prompting concerns of harassment and lack of procedural safeguards.
Delhi Police and Protest Surveillance
During the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots and related protest events, the Delhi Police employed facial recognition technology to identify alleged rioters. Around 945 video sources—from CCTV, smartphone footage, media houses—were analyzed against multiple databases, including criminal dossiers led by the Delhi Police and government-maintained records (such as e-Vahan and electoral roll data).
In response to a Right to Information (RTI) request, Delhi Police disclosed that they treat a facial match of 80% or more as “positive” and use it as a basis for arrests—even in sensitive protest-related cases like the anti-CAA demonstrations and the Red Fort farmers’ uprising.
Transparency issues compounded concerns: the police did not provide clarity on the training datasets, error margins, or retention policies for facial recognition data—raising serious ethical and legal questions.
Further investigations revealed that many individuals arrested on the basis of FRT were later acquitted—raising doubts about the reliability of identifications
Impact of Facial Recognition Technology
It has many benefits in various areas such as in National Security – the airports or travelling and immigration agencies uses FRT for keeping the record and verifying the travelers, surveillance of the mass gatherings to avoid the misconduct, by the government. Crime Prevention – Police and the Crime Bureau’s maintains the record of criminals with Facial prints which further helps them to identify the criminals and we commonly notice CCTV’s in various places which are deployed to protect business from theft. FRT also helps in detecting or finding the missing persons. And furthermore, the smartphones, banking apps, gate cameras or contactless building entry, attendance and entering in offices or in private premises use facial authentication for convenience and security. We commonly notice CCTV’s in various places which are deployed to protect business from theft.
But with the positive things there is also negative side of the FRT, it is studied that its response accuracy is not universal as it can misidentify and can make someone’s life difficult as “In Houston Sunglass Hut Robbery, a person is falsely identified as a thief by FRT- powered security system as a result he gets two weeks imprisonment until the police acknowledged that he is innocent”
One major concern is commercial exploitation as Social media platforms auto-tag the people in photos, creates database without the consent and stores individual’s personal information in the cloud which used by the hackers, they manipulate and use it as weapon against the society or for malicious purpose. One another major concern is that AI is capable of generating fake but realistic photos or videos by reading the facial feature of a person and copying it or by swapping the faces more often use for making pornographic content – ruins reputation and also to manipulate the political speeches – spread misinformation and influence public and threat in democratic society.
The facial biometrics or prints cannot be changed like the passwords and are sensitive which lead to threat if compromised, making such breaches are dangerous and some others are mass surveillance conduct by the government to tracking the people which can be used against the activists or journalists to threat them and it also bias or discriminate people base on their gender, shape and color or on races and India’s has diverse population, so such biases could lead to wrongful identification.
Ethical and Legal Challenges/Concerns
Facial Recognition has both the legal and ethical challenges such as Constitutional Right to Privacy, not only Right to Privacy (impacted- loss of dignity, fear of exposure, stress) but also Right to identity (false accusations, reputational harm), Right to Security (risk of stalking, harassment, blackmailing) and Right to Dignity (Public shaming, humiliation), the Article 21. Consent and Informed use –as in India deployment of FRT and used it without public consent occurs on large scale. Risk of mass surveillance – tracking the people particularly during the protests or political gatherings violates the Article 19(1)(a) and (b) freedom of speech and assembly. Discriminatory Bias and Accuracy Issues – FRT systems have higher error rates in identifying and bias on certain racial and ethnic groups more concerned issue diverse population country as India. Data Security and Irreversible Harm – Facial databases are prime target for hackers and is a permanent security risk if once breached. Commercial use – facial database used for advertising, customer analytics and personalization service by Private enterprises.
Legal and Regulatory Framework in India
India had only a legislation to protect the data is The Information Technology Act 2000, the rules under this provides limited safeguards and not fully adequate with the FRT. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides some privacy safeguards, but doesn’t specifically for the FRT. The aspects such as consent, retention limits, independent oversight and penalties for misuse remain unaddressed.
FRT, in India is deployed without specific legislation. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) initiated NAFRS without parliamentary sanction and public consultation.
Global Perspectives
- European Union: The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) treats biometric data as “sensitive personal data,” requiring explicit consent for processing. The EU’s proposed Artificial Intelligence Act may impose further restrictions on high-risk AI applications like FRT.
- United States: While lacking a comprehensive federal privacy law, various states like Illinois (through the Biometric Information Privacy Act) have introduced regulations that require informed consent before collecting facial data.
- United Kingdom: Although governed by GDPR principles, the UK has permitted FRT use by police with judicial oversight. However, court rulings have emphasized the need for safeguards to prevent arbitrary surveillance.
- China: With minimal privacy protections, China leads in facial surveillance deployment. Cameras integrated with AI track citizens’ movements, social behavior, and even emotions. This level of state surveillance has drawn international condemnation.
The Indian Scenario
India, while technologically advanced, lacks in data protection regulation. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is a step forward or a start, but it lacks detailed provisions on facial recognition and biometric data. Presently, projects like the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) by the National Crime Records Bureau aim to create a centralized database of facial images to identify criminals, missing persons, and unknown bodies.
However, civil liberties advocates argue that AFRS lacks legislative backing, operational transparency, and adequate safeguards. The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy emphasized the need for a threefold test legality, necessity, and proportionality—for any privacy-invasive measure.
Current FRT implementations often fall short of these standards.
Additionally, the Aadhaar program, though primarily based on fingerprints and iris scans, has experimented with facial recognition for authentication purposes. The expansion of Aadhaar into various welfare schemes amplifies concerns about surveillance, exclusion, and data misuse.
Problems and Challenges
- Lack of Regulation: India lacks a specific law regulating facial recognition which enables misuse by both public and private actors.
- Algorithmic Bias: As noted, facial recognition systems may reflect societal biases and discrimination, leading to identify and targeting minorities and marginalized groups.
- Surveillance and Violating Effect: Constant monitoring can have a violation of free speech and dissent. People are less likely to protest, express controversial opinions, or visit sensitive locations if they feel watched.
- Data Security: Storing vast facial databases creates honeypots for cybercriminals. Breaches can lead to identity theft, financial fraud, and loss of autonomy.
- Lack of Consent and Awareness: In most deployments, individuals are not informed that their facial data is being collected or how it will be used.
Solutions and Recommendations
- Stronger Laws and Enforcement: India must enact a detailed law on biometric data, defining permissible uses of FRT, rights of individuals, obligations of data controllers, and penalties for misuse.
- Independent Oversight: Establishing an autonomous Data Protection Authority with investigatory powers and oversight mechanisms is essential.
- Mandatory Consent and Transparency: FRT systems must be designed with opt-in consent models and transparency reports detailing data usage.
- Judicial Authorization for Surveillance: Government use of FRT, especially in public spaces, should require judicial approval to ensure legality and proportionality.
- Ethical AI developments: Developers must conduct fairness audits and impact assessments to identify and mitigate algorithmic bias and should be held accountable for misuse of their tools.
- Public Awareness Campaigns: Citizens must be educated about their rights concerning biometric data and how to exercise them.
Conclusion
Facial recognition technology represents a double-edged sword by offering efficiency, convenience and security on one side, and the risk of surveillance and violation of privacy on the other side. Its globally use, challenge makes a intersection between innovation and individual rights. While it promises efficiency, security, and convenience in areas from law enforcement to commercial applications, its unregulated deployment in India exposes individuals to unprecedented risks of mass surveillance, wrongful identification, and erosion of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India firmly established privacy as a facet of dignity and personal liberty under Article 21, yet current FRT practices often fall short of the constitutional tests of legality, necessity.
The main problems are that people’s faces can be scanned without their consent, the technology can make mistakes—especially with diverse populations like India’s—and private companies or governments can use it to watch or track people without limits. Once your facial data is collected, you cannot change it like a password, which makes it even more sensitive.
India now has a choice: it can create strong laws and safeguards to ensure FRT is used responsibly, or it can risk turning it into a tool for constant surveillance and control. To protect people’s freedom, safety, and dignity, the law must keep pace with technology, ensure transparency, and hold both public and private users of FRT accountable. In today’s world, where faces are as easy to search as text online, protecting privacy is not just important—it is essential for living a free and dignified life.
References
[1]Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/indias-supreme-court-upholds-right-privacy-fundamental-right-and-its-about-time
[2] S.Q. Masood’s suit: Masood v. State of Telangana (on file with Internet Freedom Foundation; filed Jan. 2022
[3] Delhi Police use during riots: Delhi Police, Rising to the Challenge (2020) (police internal report on facial recognition use in Northeast Delhi riots)
[4] Kashmir Hill, Another Arrest, and Jail Time, Due to a Bad Facial Recognition Match, N.Y. Times (Jan. 29, 2020),
[5] https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/automated-facial-recognition-system-afrs
[6] Council Regulation 2016/679, General Data Protection Regulation, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1
[7] Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 14 (2008).
[8] R. (Bridges) v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police, [2020] EWCA Civ 1058.
[9] Samm Sacks, Beijing Wants to Rewrite the Rules of the Internet, THE ATLANTIC (June 2020).
[10] National Crime Records Bureau, Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), https://ncrb.gov.in.
[11] Puttaswamy, supra note 1.
[12] Usha Ramanathan, Aadhaar and the Right to Privacy, 2 INDIAN L. REV. 153 (2018).
