Forensic use of edited genome databases prohibition

Introduction

The forensic use of edited genome databases involves the collection, storage, examination and application of genetic information that has been deliberately modified through genome-editing technologies or computational processes. Such databases may contain information relating to genetically modified biological samples, edited DNA sequences, gene-editing experiments and synthetic genomic records.

The use of these databases in criminal investigations, identity verification, medical examinations and scientific research raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Edited genomic information may not accurately represent an individual's original genetic characteristics. If such information is treated as authentic forensic evidence without proper verification, it may result in incorrect identification, wrongful allegations and violations of privacy.

The prohibition or restriction of forensic use of edited genome databases is therefore important for protecting individual rights, maintaining scientific reliability and preventing misuse of biotechnology.

Meaning and nature of edited genome databases

An edited genome database is a digital collection of genomic records containing information about DNA sequences that have been intentionally modified or computationally altered.

Such databases may include:

Records of CRISPR-Cas genome-editing experiments.

Genetically modified cell-line information.

Synthetic DNA sequence records.

Genomic information from edited agricultural or laboratory organisms.

Research records containing modified or simulated genetic sequences.

It is important to distinguish between two categories. First, databases containing information about experimentally edited organisms may be legitimate scientific resources. Second, databases containing altered records that are falsely presented as the original genetic information of an individual may create serious forensic and legal risks.

Therefore, the law should not impose a blanket prohibition on all research involving edited genomic records. Instead, restrictions should focus on deceptive, unauthorised, unreliable or unlawful forensic use.

Reasons for restricting forensic use

1. Risk of inaccurate identification

Forensic investigations depend on the reliability and authenticity of biological evidence. If edited genetic information is incorrectly presented as an individual's original DNA profile, investigators may reach inaccurate conclusions.

2. Possibility of evidence manipulation

Edited genomic databases may contain modified records that do not accurately reflect the original biological sample. Their use without proper authentication can undermine the integrity of criminal investigations.

3. Violation of genetic privacy

Genomic information may reveal inherited characteristics, biological relationships and health-related information. Unauthorised use of edited genetic records can violate constitutional privacy protections.

4. Risk of wrongful criminal proceedings

If unreliable genomic information is used to establish identity or biological relationships, an individual may face unjustified investigation or prosecution.

5. Scientific and ethical concerns

Genomic databases used for forensic purposes must maintain traceability, scientific validity and transparent documentation. Research data should not be converted into forensic evidence without appropriate validation.

Legal framework in India

India does not currently have a specific statute that categorically prohibits the forensic use of edited genome databases. However, several existing laws regulate genetic information, electronic evidence, privacy and biotechnology activities.

1. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

The Act regulates the processing of digital personal data relating to identifiable individuals. Where genomic records identify or can be linked to an individual, they may constitute personal data.

Relevant obligations include:

Lawful processing of personal data.

Compliance with applicable consent and legitimate-use requirements.

Implementation of reasonable security safeguards.

Notification of personal data breaches as prescribed by law.

Compliance with applicable retention and deletion requirements.

The Act does not create a separate prohibition specifically covering edited genome databases or classify genetic information as a distinct statutory category of sensitive personal data.

2. Information Technology Act, 2000

The Information Technology Act provides protection against unauthorised access, copying and manipulation of computer resources.

Section 43 addresses unauthorised access, downloading and damage to computer resources.

Section 66 provides criminal consequences for specified acts under Section 43 when committed dishonestly or fraudulently.

Section 72A addresses disclosure of personal information in breach of a lawful contract, subject to statutory conditions.

These provisions may apply when edited genomic databases are unlawfully accessed, manipulated or disclosed.

3. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 governs the admissibility and proof of electronic and digital records. Sections 61–63 address the legal recognition and admissibility of electronic records, including applicable requirements for their proof.

Consequently, genomic database records cannot be treated as reliable forensic evidence merely because they exist electronically. Their authenticity, source, integrity and compliance with statutory evidentiary requirements must be established.

4. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules, 1989

The Rules governing genetically engineered organisms and hazardous microorganisms regulate specified activities involving genetically engineered organisms. They provide a biosafety framework for research, manufacture, use, import, export and storage.

These rules are relevant where edited genomic databases relate to regulated genetically engineered organisms. However, they do not independently establish a general prohibition on forensic examination of genomic databases.

Conditions for lawful forensic use

A responsible regulatory framework should distinguish legitimate scientific examination from prohibited or unreliable forensic applications.

The following safeguards are important:

Authenticity verification: The origin and accuracy of genomic records must be established.

Consent and legal authority: Collection and examination must comply with applicable privacy, consent and investigative laws.

Scientific validation: Edited genomic records must not be treated as original biological profiles without appropriate scientific verification.

Chain of custody: Evidence handling and transfers must be properly documented.

Independent examination: Important forensic findings should be capable of independent scientific review.

Purpose limitation: Genomic information should not be used for unrelated purposes without an appropriate legal basis.

Protection against discrimination: Genetic information should not be misused to support arbitrary decisions concerning individuals.

Important judicial decisions

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 and other constitutional provisions. It established that interference with privacy must satisfy requirements of legality, legitimate state purpose and proportionality.

This judgment is relevant because genetic information is highly personal. Unauthorised forensic examination or disclosure of genomic records may interfere with an individual's privacy and personal autonomy.

2. District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank (2005)

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional protection of privacy in relation to access to private documents and records. The decision recognised that individuals have legitimate expectations of privacy concerning personal information.

Its principles are relevant to the protection of confidential genomic databases against unjustified access.

3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of involuntary narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations and brain electrical activation profile tests. It held that involuntary administration of these techniques violated constitutional protections under Articles 20(3) and 21.

Although the case did not concern genome editing, it is relevant to the principle that scientific and investigative techniques cannot automatically override personal liberty, bodily integrity and constitutional protections.

4. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)

The Supreme Court explained the statutory requirements for proving electronic records under the former Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The judgment is relevant to genomic databases because electronic DNA records and related digital documents must satisfy the applicable evidentiary requirements. The current law is governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

5. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of statutory certification for electronic evidence under the former Section 65B framework. It clarified important procedural requirements for establishing the admissibility of electronic records.

Its principles are relevant to the authentication of genomic database records, although current proceedings must follow the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

There are no established Indian Supreme Court decisions specifically prohibiting the forensic use of edited genome databases. These judgments provide related principles concerning privacy, bodily integrity and electronic evidence rather than a direct judicial ban.

International legal and ethical framework

The UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, 1997 emphasises human dignity, individual rights and protection against genetic discrimination. It recognises that genetic information should not be used in ways that undermine human rights.

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), particularly Articles 4(13) and 9, recognises genetic data as a special category of personal data and provides additional safeguards for its processing.

The Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention), 1997, also establishes important principles concerning human dignity, consent and protection in biomedical activities for its participating states.

Conclusion

The forensic use of edited genome databases requires strict legal and scientific safeguards because manipulated or incorrectly interpreted genetic information may produce unreliable evidence and violate individual privacy. India does not presently have a specific blanket statutory prohibition on such use. Nevertheless, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Information Technology Act, 2000, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and constitutional privacy principles provide relevant legal controls. Decisions such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Selvi v. State of Karnataka reinforce the importance of privacy, personal autonomy and constitutional safeguards. A clear regulatory framework should prevent deceptive or unauthorised forensic use while permitting properly validated scientific research and lawful investigations.