Case Law On Biometric Evidence
⚖️ 1. State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700
Facts:
In this case, the accused was charged with murder, and fingerprint evidence collected from the crime scene was one of the key pieces of evidence linking him to the offence. The defence argued that fingerprint evidence was not sufficient and could be fabricated.
Issue:
Whether fingerprint evidence alone can be relied upon to convict an accused under the Indian Evidence Act.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court of India held that:
Fingerprint evidence is scientifically reliable and admissible under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which relate to expert opinion.
The reliability depends on proper collection, preservation, and expert examination by a qualified fingerprint analyst.
Significance:
This case established that fingerprint and biometric evidence is legally admissible and highly persuasive when properly authenticated and supported by expert testimony. It strengthened the role of forensic biometrics in criminal investigations.
⚖️ 2. State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96
Facts:
The case involved DNA fingerprinting used to identify the accused’s involvement in a sexual assault and murder. The prosecution relied heavily on DNA analysis from blood samples found on the accused’s clothes.
Issue:
Can DNA fingerprinting be accepted as valid and admissible evidence under Indian law?
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the admissibility of DNA testing as a reliable scientific method of identification.
It ruled that:
DNA tests fall under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (expert evidence).
Such evidence can be decisive if the testing process and chain of custody are proven beyond doubt.
However, DNA evidence must not violate Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination).
Significance:
This was one of the earliest Indian cases recognizing DNA evidence as a trustworthy and admissible form of biometric evidence in criminal trials.
⚖️ 3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
The case questioned the constitutionality of using involuntary biometric and scientific techniques, such as narco-analysis, brain mapping, and polygraph tests, without the consent of the accused.
Issue:
Whether such biometric-based investigation methods violate the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court held that:
Compulsory use of such biometric or forensic tests without consent violates Article 20(3).
The results of such tests cannot be admitted as evidence unless the accused voluntarily consents and the procedure follows strict legal safeguards.
Only voluntarily obtained biometric data (like fingerprints or DNA samples) can be admissible.
Significance:
This judgment laid down the constitutional limits on collecting biometric evidence, balancing scientific investigation with fundamental rights.
⚖️ 4. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
The accused was involved in a forgery case. The investigating agency sought to compel him to give his voice sample for forensic comparison with a recorded call. The question was whether the police could legally take such a biometric voice sample without explicit legal authority.
Issue:
Can a court or investigating agency compel an accused to give a voice sample for investigation?
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that:
Taking a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3) because it is not testimonial in nature, similar to fingerprints or DNA.
However, since there was no explicit law authorizing it, the Court directed the Parliament to enact a suitable provision.
Later, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 legalized the collection of biometric samples (including voice, iris, fingerprints, etc.).
Significance:
This case expanded the scope of biometric admissibility and clarified that non-testimonial biometrics (fingerprints, voice, DNA) can be legally collected.
⚖️ 5. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Aadhaar Judgment
Facts:
The case challenged the Aadhaar scheme, which collects and stores citizens’ biometric data (fingerprints, iris scans) for identification and welfare distribution.
Issue:
Whether the compulsory collection of biometric data violates the right to privacy under Article 21.
Court’s Decision:
A 9-judge bench recognized Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
However, in the later Aadhaar judgment (2018), the Court upheld the scheme with conditions:
Biometric data collection is valid if it has statutory backing, informed consent, and adequate data protection.
Unauthorized or excessive collection of biometric data is unconstitutional.
Significance:
This case defined the boundaries of biometric data use in governance and investigations — ensuring that biometric evidence is admissible only when privacy safeguards are respected.
✅ Conclusion
| Case | Type of Biometric Evidence | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Sukhdev Singh (1992) | Fingerprints | Admissible if properly authenticated |
| Bhagirath (1999) | DNA profiling | Admissible under Section 45, if chain of custody maintained |
| Selvi (2010) | Brain mapping, narco, biometric tests | Involuntary use violates Article 20(3) |
| Ritesh Sinha (2019) | Voice sample | Non-testimonial biometric, legally collectible |
| Puttaswamy (2017–18) | Aadhaar biometrics | Privacy safeguards mandatory for collection and use |
RELATED Blog
0 comments