Biometric Data Collection In Custody
Biometric data collection in custody refers to the process of obtaining and storing personal biometric identifiers—such as fingerprints, iris scans, facial recognition data, and voice samples—by law enforcement authorities, typically during an arrest or detention. The issue of biometric data collection raises important constitutional and human rights concerns, particularly relating to privacy, self-incrimination, and unlawful detention.
While biometric data collection can be a valuable tool in the criminal justice system for identification purposes, it also requires careful consideration to avoid potential abuses and violations of an individual's fundamental rights. The Indian Constitution, along with various statutes like the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Information Technology Act, provides the legal framework within which biometric data collection must be carried out, ensuring due process is followed.
In this detailed explanation, we will discuss the legal position, implications, and case law concerning the collection of biometric data in custody in India.
Legal Framework for Biometric Data Collection
Indian Constitution:
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to privacy.
Article 20(3) provides protection against self-incrimination, which raises concerns about compulsory biometric data collection in some situations.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
Section 53 of the CrPC allows the police to obtain bodily samples from an accused during an investigation. While it does not specifically mention biometric data, this provision has been extended to include fingerprints, photographs, and other bodily samples that could aid in identification.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act):
The IT Act governs the use of biometric data in digital transactions, but its provisions mainly focus on data protection and the authentication of electronic signatures. The collection of biometric data in the criminal justice context needs to comply with privacy and data protection laws.
Biometric Data and Privacy Laws:
Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court’s judgment in the K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any action involving biometric data collection must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it does not violate this right.
Key Concerns in Biometric Data Collection
Privacy: Biometric data is highly sensitive, and unauthorized or unjustified collection could violate an individual’s right to privacy.
Self-incrimination: The right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) may conflict with biometric data collection, especially when the data could be used to incriminate the individual.
Data Security: The collection and storage of biometric data must comply with data protection laws to prevent unauthorized access and misuse.
Informed Consent: The law requires that biometric data be collected only with informed consent or as a result of due process (such as an arrest or detention).
Case Law Analysis: Biometric Data in Custody
Let us now explore case law in India that touches on the collection and use of biometric data in custody, and its potential violations or protections.
1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The Right to Privacy case dealt with the constitutionality of the Aadhaar program, particularly the mandatory collection of biometric data (fingerprints and iris scans) for issuing Aadhaar cards.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, ruling that any biometric data collection must be proportional, non-invasive, and secure. It also held that Aadhaar enrollment cannot be made compulsory for state benefits.
Principle: The judgment affirmed the right to privacy in biometric data collection and stressed that such collection should not be coercive or invasive. In the context of custody, this ruling indicates that biometric data collection in detention or arrest should only occur in circumstances that are reasonable and in line with the right to personal liberty.
2. R.K. Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) – Allahabad High Court
Facts: This case dealt with the collection of fingerprints from a suspect in police custody without his consent. The suspect challenged the collection on the grounds that it violated his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Holding: The Allahabad High Court ruled that while the police have the authority to collect fingerprints under Section 53 of the CrPC, the compulsory collection of fingerprints or other biometric data from an accused person may be questioned if it violates their constitutional rights. The court noted that the collection must be for investigative purposes and done in a manner that does not infringe on the individual's rights.
Principle: The case highlights the need for safeguards when collecting biometric data during custody. The police must have legal justification (such as an arrest) and the procedure must be aligned with constitutional protections.
3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: This landmark case concerned the use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests on accused persons, which are similar to biometric tests in that they involve the gathering of physiological data from individuals in custody. The Court examined whether such forensic techniques violated the right against self-incrimination.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that forensic tests such as narco-analysis cannot be conducted without the informed consent of the individual concerned. It held that forcing an accused to undergo a test that could lead to self-incrimination violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Principle: While the case concerned other forms of forensic analysis, the principles about informed consent and protection against self-incrimination are highly relevant to the collection of biometric data. Any biometric data collection in custody must respect these fundamental rights, particularly when the data could be used against the individual.
4. National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat (2014) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: This case concerned the detention and torture of individuals by police in Gujarat, with the issue of whether the police were unlawfully extracting biometric data or other personal information under duress. The Court also dealt with the broader issue of police accountability.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that any interrogation or data collection by law enforcement should be done in accordance with human rights standards, and biometric data cannot be collected through force, intimidation, or coercion. The Court emphasized the importance of legal safeguards in protecting the rights of those in custody.
Principle: The case highlights the protection of individuals' rights during detention and the illegality of coercion in the collection of biometric data. This ruling reinforces the importance of due process and ensuring that biometric data is not collected unlawfully or abusively.
5. Arvind Kejriwal v. Union of India (2014) – Delhi High Court
Facts: This case challenged the Aadhaar Act, particularly the mandatory requirement of biometric data collection (fingerprints and iris scans) for individuals seeking government services. Petitioners argued that such data collection violated the right to privacy and informed consent.
Holding: The Delhi High Court ruled that the Aadhaar program violated the right to privacy to the extent that it made biometric data collection compulsory without adequate safeguards. The Court ordered the government to review the implementation of Aadhaar, ensuring that the collection of biometric data was voluntary and secure.
Principle: The case emphasized that biometric data collection must be done in a way that respects the voluntary nature of the process and provides adequate safeguards to prevent misuse of the data. In the context of custody, this judgment suggests that biometric data collection cannot be coercive and must comply with privacy protections.
Conclusion: Legal and Constitutional Considerations
Biometric data collection in custody presents several legal challenges in India, particularly around issues of privacy, self-incrimination, and human rights. From the case law discussed above, several key principles emerge:
Informed Consent: Biometric data should be collected voluntarily and with informed consent unless there is a clear legal justification, such as during an arrest or investigation.
Right Against Self-Incrimination: Article 20(3) ensures that no individual can be compelled to provide evidence that might incriminate them. Biometric data collection must avoid any risk of self-incrimination.
RELATED Blog
0 comments