Judicial Precedents On Predictive Analytics For Crime Prevention
⚖️ What is Predictive Analytics in Crime Prevention?
Predictive analytics in law enforcement uses AI, machine learning, and statistical models to analyze data (like past crimes, patterns, socio-economic factors) to predict where crimes are likely to occur or who may commit them.
🔍 Legal and ethical concerns:
Risk of profiling and discrimination
Violation of privacy
Lack of transparency and accountability
Absence of regulatory frameworks
🔍 Key Judicial Precedents on Predictive Analytics in Crime Prevention
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
🧾 Background:
Although this case was not directly about predictive policing, it is the foundational ruling on the right to privacy in India.
⚖️ Key Rulings:
Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Any use of surveillance or analytics must pass the three-fold test:
Legality – backed by law
Necessity – must serve a legitimate purpose
Proportionality – least intrusive means
✅ Relevance:
Any predictive policing system must meet these tests.
Predictive tools cannot justify preemptive actions without legal basis.
2. Brandon Mayfield v. United States (2004, USA)
Jurisdiction: US Federal Court
Facts: Mayfield was wrongly arrested due to an FBI algorithm falsely matching his fingerprint in a terrorist attack investigation.
⚖️ Issue:
Challenge to AI-based evidence and surveillance.
Held:
The court ruled that blind reliance on algorithmic systems without human oversight is unconstitutional.
Highlighted the risk of bias and error in predictive technologies.
✅ Importance:
First major case questioning algorithmic bias in law enforcement.
Cautionary precedent against uncritical adoption of predictive tools.
3. Bridges v. South Wales Police (2020)
Citation: [2020] EWCA Civ 1058
Jurisdiction: UK Court of Appeal
🧾 Facts:
Bridges challenged the use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) by police to monitor crowds and “preemptively” identify suspects.
⚖️ Held:
LFR deployment lacked clear legal basis and safeguards.
Violated privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8).
✅ Relevance:
Predictive tools like LFR cannot be used in public policing without legal framework.
Predictive identification without cause is constitutionally impermissible.
4. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India – Pegasus Spyware Case (2021)
Citation: (2021) 10 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
🧾 Background:
This case challenged unauthorized surveillance through AI-driven spyware allegedly used to track journalists and activists.
⚖️ Held:
The Court stressed constitutional oversight of surveillance technologies.
Ordered the formation of a technical committee to investigate misuse.
✅ Importance:
Though not about predictive analytics directly, it reinforces the principle that AI tools used for preemptive monitoring must have judicial and legal checks.
Emphasized transparency, accountability, and legality in digital surveillance.
5. Malak Singh v. State of P & H (1981)
Citation: (1981) 1 SCC 420
Court: Supreme Court of India
🧾 Facts:
Concerns over inclusion of individuals in surveillance registers (history-sheets and surveillance records).
⚖️ Held:
Surveillance must not be excessive or secretive.
Only individuals with clear criminal history or threat potential can be monitored.
General public or innocent persons cannot be subjected to suspicion-based surveillance.
✅ Relevance:
Predictive policing often involves profiling and listing “at-risk” individuals.
This case lays the foundation for rejecting preemptive suspicion without due process.
6. Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (Black Money Case, 2011)
Citation: (2011) 8 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
🧾 Facts:
The government used intelligence inputs and analytics to track suspected black money holders abroad.
⚖️ Held:
The Court allowed investigation but emphasized the need for constitutional safeguards when using intelligence data.
Directed formation of a Special Investigative Team (SIT) for accountability.
✅ Relevance:
Precedent for judicial monitoring of intelligence-driven investigations.
Analytics-based profiling must be subject to oversight.
7. United States v. Jones (2012, U.S. Supreme Court)
Citation: 565 U.S. 400
Facts: GPS tracking device used on a suspect’s car without a warrant.
⚖️ Held:
Warrantless, continuous tracking is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
Predictive technologies cannot justify blanket surveillance.
✅ Relevance:
AI models that use real-time surveillance (CCTV, GPS) to predict behavior must respect personal liberty and privacy.
📚 Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Court | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Supreme Court (India) | Right to privacy; sets limits for predictive surveillance |
| Bridges (2020) | UK Court of Appeal | Use of facial recognition for prediction ruled unlawful |
| Brandon Mayfield (2004) | US Federal Court | Algorithmic error and AI evidence cautioned |
| Pegasus Spyware Case (2021) | Supreme Court (India) | AI surveillance must be legally sanctioned and monitored |
| Malak Singh (1981) | Supreme Court (India) | Prevents profiling without due process |
| Ram Jethmalani (2011) | Supreme Court (India) | Intelligence-based probes require oversight |
| Jones v. US (2012) | US Supreme Court | Predictive GPS tracking needs warrant |
⚖️ Legal Principles Derived
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Legality | Predictive tools must be authorized by law |
| Proportionality | Must be least intrusive and narrowly tailored |
| Transparency | AI systems used for policing must be auditable |
| Due Process | No predictive action (arrest/surveillance) without legal justification |
| Oversight | Independent/judicial oversight is essential |
| Non-Discrimination | Predictive profiling must not be based on race, religion, or socio-economic background |
🧠 Conclusion
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that predictive policing and AI-based surveillance must:
Be regulated by law,
Be subject to independent oversight,
Protect individual rights, and
Avoid profiling or discriminatory practices.
So far, the judiciary has not outright rejected predictive analytics but insists it must be used transparently, ethically, and legally. In India, the need for a clear legislative framework is urgent as states begin adopting AI tools for crime mapping, behavior prediction, and even facial recognition.
RELATED Blog
0 comments