Biometric Authentication In Trials
✅ 1. What is Biometric Authentication?
Biometric authentication refers to identifying individuals based on unique biological traits like:
Fingerprints
Iris scans
Facial recognition
Voice samples
DNA profiling
In criminal trials, biometric data is used for:
Identifying accused persons
Linking suspects to crime scenes
Verifying identity during arrest, custody, or trial
Cross-referencing criminal records
⚖️ 2. Legal Basis for Biometric Collection in India
Key Statutes:
Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (repealed)
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 – replaces the 1920 law, allowing:
Collection of fingerprints, palm prints, retina and iris scans, DNA, and other biometric and behavioral attributes.
Applies to convicts, arrested persons, or those detained under preventive laws.
Key Provisions:
Section 53 & 54 of CrPC – Allow for medical examination (including DNA, fingerprints) of the accused.
Section 311A of CrPC – Allows taking of voice samples with court permission.
📌 3. Constitutional Validity
The collection and use of biometric data must comply with:
Article 21 – Right to Privacy (as held in Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017)
Article 20(3) – Protection against self-incrimination
⚖️ 4. Key Case Laws on Biometric Authentication in Trials
✅ 1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts: Accused were subjected to narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping tests without consent.
Held:
Involuntary use of such techniques violates Article 20(3) – self-incrimination.
Consent is mandatory for collection of certain intrusive biometric data (e.g., brain mapping).
But non-invasive techniques like fingerprints or voice samples may be allowed with due procedure.
Significance:
Clarified which biometric methods violate rights.
Differentiated between testimonial compulsion and physical evidence (like fingerprints, DNA).
✅ 2. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)
Citation: (2019) 8 SCC 1
Facts: Issue was whether an accused could be compelled to provide a voice sample.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled that voice samples can be collected with court permission.
Directed amendment of CrPC (later included in Section 311A).
Held that voice samples are not testimonial, hence not protected under Article 20(3).
Significance:
Landmark case in expanding biometric evidence in investigations and trials.
Allowed voice biometrics to be used in court without violating rights.
✅ 3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Facts: Constitutional challenge to the Aadhaar Act and privacy concerns regarding biometric data.
Held:
Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Any collection of biometric data must follow proportionality, necessity, and legality.
Emphasized data protection and consent-based collection.
Significance:
Set constitutional standards for biometric use.
Affects how biometric authentication is used in criminal justice.
✅ 4. Bombay High Court in Vikram Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021)
Facts: Accused challenged collection of fingerprints and DNA without consent under the now-repealed 1920 Act.
Held:
Held that collection was lawful under the 1920 Act read with CrPC.
Confirmed that biometric evidence does not violate Article 20(3) if used for identification, not compulsion.
Significance:
Reaffirmed use of biometrics like DNA and fingerprints as permissible tools.
✅ 5. S. Raghav v. State of Karnataka (2022) (Karnataka HC)
Facts: Accused challenged taking of facial recognition and iris scan during investigation.
Held:
The Court allowed it, stating that modern biometric tools are valid if they aid investigation and are authorized by law.
Emphasized adherence to data protection and privacy standards.
Significance:
Recognized the role of emerging biometric tools in criminal trials.
Reinforced requirement for legal backing.
✅ 6. Loknath Behra v. State of Kerala (2006)
Citation: (2006) 13 SCC 498
Facts: Use of fingerprints to connect accused with bomb-making.
Held:
Court held fingerprint evidence as reliable and admissible if collected properly.
Refused to discard biometric evidence when due procedure was followed.
Significance:
Validated long-standing use of fingerprints in criminal trials.
🧠 5. Key Legal Principles Established
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Biometric data ≠ self-incrimination | Physical identifiers like fingerprints, DNA, and voice samples are not considered testimonial and do not violate Article 20(3). |
| Consent required for intrusive techniques | Narco, brain mapping, and polygraph need informed consent (Selvi case). |
| Judicial approval for voice samples | Mandatory under Section 311A CrPC (Ritesh Sinha). |
| Privacy rights applicable | Must follow due process, legality, proportionality (Puttaswamy case). |
| Admissibility depends on proper collection | Chain of custody and legality of collection crucial for admissibility. |
⚖️ 6. The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
This law replaced the 1920 Act and expands the scope of biometric data collection.
Key Features:
Authorizes collection of:
Fingerprints, palm prints, iris, retina scans
Photographs, DNA, voice samples
Applies to:
Convicts, arrestees, detainees
Persons ordered to give samples by courts or police
Criticism:
Potential violation of privacy
Vague scope and lack of data protection framework
📋 Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Issue | Court’s Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Selvi v. Karnataka (2010) | Narco, polygraph, brain mapping | Involuntary methods violate rights; consent is key |
| Ritesh Sinha (2019) | Voice samples | Allowed with court approval; not self-incrimination |
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Privacy and biometrics | Privacy is fundamental; collection must be legal and proportionate |
| Vikram Singh (2021) | Fingerprints and DNA | Permissible under CrPC; not violative of rights |
| S. Raghav (2022) | Facial recognition, iris scan | Allowed with safeguards |
| Loknath Behra (2006) | Fingerprint evidence | Reliable and admissible with due process |
✅ 7. Conclusion
Biometric authentication has become a powerful tool in the Indian criminal justice system. While it enhances accuracy and helps establish identity in trials, it must be balanced with constitutional protections.
Courts have generally supported the use of non-intrusive biometric data, like fingerprints and voice samples, but have stressed on:
Legal backing
Court supervision
Privacy safeguards
Proper chain of custody
With the advent of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, the role of biometric data will increase, but so will the need for robust data protection and ethical use.
RELATED Blog
0 comments