On 23rd March this year Union Home Minister introduced a new Criminal Procedure Identification Bill 2022 in order to make the court and the whole system of justice seeking to have ease to identify criminals although there is an existing law which talks about all these that is Identification of Prisoners Act 1920.
The bill attempts to replace the Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920, which was amended in the 1980s by the Law Commission of India (in its 87th Report) and the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. vs Ram Babu Misra (1980).
The criticism and need for modification was mostly directed at the Act's restricted definition of "measurements." As measurement is limited to finger and footprint impression.
The bill also expands the categories of people whose impression can be taken. In other words, the expansion of the word ‘person'. The criticism and need for modification was mostly directed at the Act's restricted definition of "measurements."
Other blogs by Sidharth Shankar
Local(Domicile based) Jobs Quota
What bill says
Redefining the word ‘measurement’ to include finger impression, palm prints ,foot impression photographs , iris scan , physical biological samples and their analysis along with signature and handwriting etc. It empowers the magistrate to order any person to give measurement.
It empowers police to take measurement of such a person who resists giving the sample police my use of force for the same.
The court or Magistrate might order agencies to keep records for reasons that must be documented in writing. In the instance of somebody who has never been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for any period of time, the records will be destroyed.
With this it is quite clear that storage and collection of such sensitive data may be used in the future to identify criminals but it also violates one of the basic rights of a human given by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India because it doesn’t give any direction for handling data.
It focuses on the advancement of the identification process and use of advanced technology to identify criminals and it says that it is proven and has a world wide acceptance.
Issues with the bill :
The fundamental right against self-incrimination (provided by Article 20(3)), and the right to privacy (provided by Article 21) of the Indian Constitution are all obviously violated by the bill.
The Bill raises serious concerns about the Bill's disproportionate delegation of power to numerous functionaries and authorities, including jail staff and police officers. The gathering of data on behavioral attributes( Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill) is a violation of the Right to self-incrimination (no person is forced to give witness against himself/ herself) because such data can be used to create measurements that are testimonial in nature. The bill might lead to NARCO analysis and brain mapping, as well as the use of coercion in gathering biological data by force.
It violates Right to privacy provisions like these, which rely on the acquisition, storage, preservation, sharing, and distribution of sensitive personal information, and should only be implemented after a data protection legislation has been enacted to address possible breaches. The bill aims to gather samples from protestors who are taking part in political demonstrations. As data are not safe as far as today's conditions are concerned.
Ensure Data Security: There is no doubt that privacy and data security are important concerns. Such procedures involving the acquisition, storage, and erasure of personal data should only be implemented once a robust data protection law is in place, with severe penalties for violations.
The law also fails to distinguish between crimes for which data collection is permissible and those for which it is not.
The Supreme Court of India declared in State of Bombay versus Kathi Kalu in 1961 that the person presenting his specimen whilst in custody handwriting, signature, or thumb, finger, or palm impression or on foot, to the officer in charge of the investigation, Under Articles 20(3) of the Constitution, the phrase "to be a witness" cannot be used. Similarly, it has occurred in a slew of instances. Taking a blood sample for the purpose of a DNA test has been held to be illegal. Taking a hair sample or a voice sample isn't enough to persuade a suspect to testify as a witness as a result of such samples, he's up against himself are harmless in and of themselves do not share information with others the accused's firsthand knowledge
