Tracing The Constitutional Validity of Indian Criminal Procedure Identification Act 2022

Keywords: Criminal Procedure, Identification, Privacy Rights, Data Protection, Law Enforcement

Introduction:

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act of 2022, enacted on April 18, 2022, marks a significant departure from the colonial-era Identification of Prisoners Act, of 1920, responding to the evolving landscape of technology and scientific methods in criminal investigations. Stemming from the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, of 2022, this legislation expands the scope of permissible data collection, allowing law enforcement to utilize modern technology for comprehensive body measurements, including fingerprints, palm prints, and iris scans. Central to the Act is the authorization granted to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) for the collection, storage, and dissemination of these records. This article delves into the constitutional validity of the Indian Criminal Procedure Identification Act of 2022, exploring the intricate balance between effective criminal investigations and individual liberties in the context of technological advancements.[1]

Historical Context:

The Identification of Prisoners Act, of 1920, a historical legal framework predating the 1956 state reorganization, mandated measurements, primarily fingerprints and footprints, for those sentenced to a year or more or providing security under the Criminal Procedure Code. Law enforcement collected these, refusal constituting an offense under IPC Section 186. Interestingly, for those released without trial or acquitted, records were to be obliterated unless directed otherwise by the court or designated authorities. The Act vested rule-making authority in the state government, underscoring the historical underpinnings that shaped the regulatory landscape surrounding the identification of prisoners in the Indian legal framework.[2]

Legal Framework:

Enacted on April 6, 2022, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act replaces the antiquated Identification of Prisoners Act, of 1920. This legislation broadens identification procedures by introducing a comprehensive framework for biometric data collection, expanding its scope beyond fingerprints and footprints. Notably, it covers convicted individuals, those under preventive laws, and individuals providing security under Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 3 compels various measurements, including fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, photographs, iris and retina scans, along with physical and biological samples. The Act significantly broadens the scope by authorizing not only law enforcement officers but also registered medical practitioners and other authorized individuals to collect such measurements. Controversy surrounds the Act, as articulated in Section 4, which empowers the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) to manage the collected records, raising concerns about data security, potential misuse, and the overarching impact on individuals’ rights.[3] The Act, through its mandatory language using the term “shall” in Section 3, prompts questions regarding the voluntariness of providing personal data, posing a potential clash with the right to privacy established in the seminal case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2017 SCC 10 641. [4]

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, raises concerns about government overreach and the delicate balance between security and individual liberties. Section 5 grants magistrates authority to compel measurements, invoking penal provisions in Section 6 for resistance. Legal experts, policymakers, and jurists should scrutinize the Act for alignment with constitutional values, human rights, and legal theory dynamics to ensure legislative intervention adheres to principles of liberty, equality, and justice. The Act signifies a leap in criminal identification, aiming to enhance investigation efficiency through extensive measurements and modern technology. Top of Form

Notably, it broadens the scope of individuals subject to measurement, moving beyond those convicted or arrested for offenses with a one-year imprisonment term to encompass individuals accused of any offense. This expansion, while potentially aiding law enforcement, raises concerns about the Act’s proportionality, the right to privacy, and the potential for misuse.[5]

The Act’s assumption that previously collected evidence will invariably prove useful in subsequent offenses lacks a nuanced understanding of forensic limitations, potentially rendering the extensive database less effective than intended. Overall, while the Act demonstrates an effort to modernize and streamline criminal identification, careful consideration and refinement are necessary to address these pressing legal and privacy concerns.[6]

Constitutional Validity

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, departs from the Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920, expanding measurements under Section 2(1)(b) to include behavioral attributes and biological samples. This comprehensive definition raises constitutional concerns, particularly regarding potential forceful methods like narcoanalysis and brain mapping, impacting the right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and the right to life (Article 21) under the Indian Constitution.

Article 20(3), as established in cases like Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar And Another 2012 SCC 12 554[7], explicitly protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves. The inclusion of general terms like physical and biological samples within the definition of “measurements” raises concerns about coerced self-incrimination. This departure from the conventional understanding of measurements could be seen as a violation of the United Nations Charter’s Human Rights requirements, posing a threat to the fundamental right to privacy recognized by various Supreme Court judgments, including K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, (AIR 1950 SC 27[8])Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., 1963 AIR SC 1925[9] Charles Sobraj v. Supt. Central Jail, 1978 AIR SC 1514[10] Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 AIR SC 378[11] and Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India 2008 AIR SC 0 6624[12]

Moreover, Clause 4(2) of the Act allowing the retention of measurement records for 75 years clashes with the right to be forgotten, a concept upheld by the Supreme Court in S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. This extended retention contradicts the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a cornerstone of criminal law. The Act, by subjecting individuals to perpetual government observation, arguably infringes upon the right to life and privacy, as expounded in constitutional interpretations such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR SC 594[13] and State of A.P. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy. 2000 AIR SC 1923[14]

In conclusion, the constitutional validity of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, of 2022, is subjected to intense scrutiny, particularly regarding potential infringements on the right against self-incrimination, the right to life, and the right to privacy.

Drawbacks

The proposed Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, raises concerns about privacy violations and ambiguities. Notably, it may infringe on the right to privacy, extending to ordinary citizens, including protestors. The vague term ‘biological samples’ introduces ambiguity, allowing for invasive procedures without clear guidelines, potentially violating Article 20(3) protecting against self-incrimination. The implied use of force for biological sample collection, leading to narcoanalysis and brain mapping, raises questions about constitutional alignment. The extended 75-year retention period for records poses challenges, particularly regarding data handling and potential mass surveillance. The integration of this database with existing systems like the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) further amplifies concerns, necessitating careful consideration of data preservation, sharing, dissemination, and destruction.[15]

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, introduces vagueness, especially with the undefined term ‘biological samples,’ risking breaches of DNA-related bodily samples and potential storage of private details and medical histories. Practical challenges, including concerns about degradation due to insufficient police infrastructure, further compound the issue. Excessive data collection and storage, while potentially aiding criminal identification, also raises issues related to the capacity and efficiency of forensic departments, presenting a significant workload without commensurate problem-solving outcomes.[16]

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, presents practical challenges, including cost implications for creating a DNA databank and outsourcing to private contractors, raising concerns about data integrity and privacy. The absence of clear provisions for the disposal or destruction of measurements may lead to confusion and doubts about legal adherence. Delegating excessive power to law enforcement authorities poses a risk of discriminatory practices, conflicting with constitutional principles of equality (Article 14).

In conclusion, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, exhibits multiple drawbacks, encompassing privacy concerns, ambiguous provisions, challenges in data handling, and potential conflicts with constitutional rights. These drawbacks necessitate a thorough reevaluation of the legislation to ensure a balance between law enforcement needs and safeguarding individual rights.[17]

Conclusion

The enactment of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is a commendable effort to modernize India’s criminal identification procedures, aligning them with global standards. However, the Act raises concerns regarding privacy, ambiguous terms, and delegation of state power to private entities. To address these issues, the government should consider introducing a robust Data Protection Bill, clarifying ambiguous terms, promoting awareness in rural areas, and establishing clear protocols for uniformity. Balancing effective law enforcement with the preservation of individual rights is crucial, and thoughtful amendments should be pursued to ensure compatibility with democratic principles and constitutional safeguards, fortifying the Act’s positive impact on law enforcement while upholding the nation’s democratic ethos.

Reference(s):

1. Yadav, V., 2022. Analysis of India’s Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022: Determining Potential Misuse and Possible Violations of Fundamental Rights. International Annals of Criminology, 60(2), pp.251-268.
2. Shekhar, S., 2023. An Analysis of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. Indian J. Integrated Rsch. L., 3, p.1.
3. The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022 (prsindia.org) Last Visited on 29.01.24
4. Tiwari, A.K., 2022. Exploring the Intersection of Privacy and Other Fundamental Rights with the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022. Jus Corpus LJ, 3, p.223.
5. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 30.01.24
6. Yadav, V., 2022. Analysis of India’s Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022: Determining Potential Misuse and Possible Violations of Fundamental Rights. International Annals of Criminology, 60(2), pp.251-268.
7. Sharma, S., 2022. Exploration of Legal Aspect in the Criminal Procedure Identification Bill: Infringement of Rights. Issue 4 Indian JL & Legal Rsch., 4, p.1.
8. Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar and Anr. | Delhi High Court | Judgment | Law | CaseMine Last Visited on 30.01.24
9. A K Gopalan Vs State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27) – Case Analysis (lawcorner.in) Last Visited on 30.01.24
10. Kharak Singh v. State Of U.P And Others | Supreme Court Of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine Last Visited on 31.01.24
11. Charles Sobraj vs The Suptd., Central Jail, Tihar. New … on 31 August, 1978 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 31.01.24
12. Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 February, 1983 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 31.01.24
13. Pramod Kumar Saxena vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 September, 2008 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 31.01.24
14. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 31.01.24
15. State Of A.P v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy And Others | Supreme Court Of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine Last Visited on 31.01.24
16. Mathew, A.A., 2022. The Criminal Procedure Identification Act, 2022: Analysis in the Light of Violent and Serial Crimes. Issue 2 Indian JL & Legal Rsch., 4, p.1.
17. Sharma, S., 2022. Exploration of Legal Aspect in the Criminal Procedure Identification Bill: Infringement of Rights. Issue 4 Indian JL & Legal Rsch., 4, p.1.
18. Srivastava, A., Harshey, A., Das, T., Kumar, A., Yadav, M.M. and Shrivastava, P., 2022. Impact of DNA evidence in criminal justice system: Indian legislative perspectives. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 12(1), p.51.

[1] Yadav, V., 2022. Analysis of India’s Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022: Determining Potential Misuse and Possible Violations of Fundamental Rights. International Annals of Criminology, 60(2), pp.251-268.

[2] The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022 (prsindia.org) Last Visited on 29.01.24

[3] Tiwari, A.K., 2022. Exploring the Intersection of Privacy and Other Fundamental Rights with the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022. Jus Corpus LJ, 3, p.223.

[4] Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 30.01.24

[5] Yadav, V., 2022. Analysis of India’s Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022: Determining Potential Misuse and Possible Violations of Fundamental Rights. International Annals of Criminology, 60(2), pp.251-268.

[6] Sharma, S., 2022. Exploration of Legal Aspect in the Criminal Procedure Identification Bill: Infringement of Rights. Issue 4 Indian JL & Legal Rsch., 4, p.1.

[7] Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar and Anr. | Delhi High Court | Judgment | Law | CaseMine Last Visited on 30.01.24

[8] A K Gopalan Vs State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27) – Case Analysis (lawcorner.in) Last Visited on 30.01.24

[9] Kharak Singh v. State Of U.P And Others | Supreme Court Of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine Last Visited on 31.01.24

[10] Charles Sobraj vs The Suptd., Central Jail, Tihar. New … on 31 August, 1978 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 31.01.24

[11] Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 February, 1983 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 31.01.24

[12] Pramod Kumar Saxena vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 September, 2008 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 31.01.24

[13] Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978 (indiankanoon.org) Last Visited on 31.01.24

[14] State Of A.P v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy And Others | Supreme Court Of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine Last Visited on 31.01.24

[15] Mathew, A.A., 2022. The Criminal Procedure Identification Act, 2022: Analysis in the Light of Violent and Serial Crimes. Issue 2 Indian JL & Legal Rsch., 4, p.1.

[16] Sharma, S., 2022. Exploration of Legal Aspect in the Criminal Procedure Identification Bill: Infringement of Rights. Issue 4 Indian JL & Legal Rsch., 4, p.1.

[17] Srivastava, A., Harshey, A., Das, T., Kumar, A., Yadav, M.M. and Shrivastava, P., 2022. Impact of DNA evidence in criminal justice system: Indian legislative perspectives. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 12(1), p.51.