9. ADDITIONAL RELEVANT CASE LAWS

7. JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) V. UNION OF INDIA (2018), SUPREME COURT OF INDIA — DIRECT AUTHORITY ON AADHAAR, ANALOGOUS AUTHORITY ON IMMUNITY IDENTIFICATION

The Aadhaar judgment examined the constitutional validity of biometric identification and the collection, storage, and use of identity information. The majority upheld the Aadhaar framework in specified respects, while Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented on significant privacy and data-protection issues. The judgment demonstrates that biometric identification must be evaluated against statutory authority, legitimate purpose, proportionality, and safeguards against misuse.

8. JACOB PULIYEL V. UNION OF INDIA (2022), SUPREME COURT OF INDIA — DIRECT AUTHORITY ON COVID-19 VACCINATION POLICY, ANALOGOUS AUTHORITY ON IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES

The Court recognized bodily autonomy and held that no individual could be forced to undergo vaccination. It also stated that restrictions affecting unvaccinated individuals must be reasonable and proportionate to legitimate public-health objectives. The Court examined restrictions imposed on unvaccinated persons and emphasized that restrictions lacking supporting scientific justification were not sustainable. The judgment is relevant to immunity-based identification because health-status credentials should not automatically justify exclusion from public life without an appropriate legal and evidentiary basis.

4. IMPORTANT JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

1. SELVI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2010) — DIRECT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of involuntary narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations, and brain electrical activation profile tests. It held that involuntary administration of the techniques in question violated constitutional protections against compelled self-incrimination and implicated personal liberty and privacy. Although the case did not directly concern immune-based identification, its principles are relevant when biological testing risks coercion or intrudes into protected personal interests.

2. K.S. PUTTASWAMY v. UNION OF INDIA (2017) — DIRECT PRIVACY AUTHORITY

The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution. State interference with privacy must satisfy legality, a legitimate State aim, and proportionality, together with applicable constitutional safeguards. This decision provides a central standard for evaluating government collection, analysis, storage, and sharing of identifiable immune-profile data.

3. STATE OF BOMBAY v. KATHI KALU OGHAD (1961) — ANALOGOUS AUTHORITY

The Supreme Court distinguished testimonial compulsion from the provision of physical evidence, including fingerprints and specimen impressions. The decision is relevant when assessing whether obtaining an immune-related biological sample constitutes compelled testimony. It does not, however, establish that every compulsory medical or biological test is constitutionally permissible.

4. SHARDA v. DHARMAPAL (2003) — ANALOGOUS AUTHORITY

The Supreme Court considered medical examination in matrimonial proceedings and recognised that courts may, in appropriate circumstances, order medical examinations where statutory and procedural requirements are satisfied. The judgment illustrates that bodily privacy is important but must be considered alongside legitimate judicial objectives. It does not authorise unrestricted immune profiling.

5. BANSI LAL v. MUKAND LAL (1976) — ANALOGOUS AUTHORITY

The Supreme Court addressed the evidentiary and procedural considerations associated with medical examination in matrimonial litigation. Its relevance to immunity-based identification is indirect: medical evidence must be assessed in the context of the legal issue before the court, rather than treated as automatically decisive merely because it is scientific.

6. S. AND MARPER v. UNITED KINGDOM (2008) — COMPARATIVE HUMAN-RIGHTS AUTHORITY

The European Court of Human Rights held that the blanket and indefinite retention of fingerprints, cellular samples, and DNA profiles of persons who had not been convicted violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the decision concerned DNA and fingerprint records rather than immune markers, its reasoning is highly relevant to retention limits, privacy safeguards, and the risks of keeping biological identification data without adequate justification.

7. DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND COLLECTOR v. CANARA BANK (2005) — ANALOGOUS PRIVACY AUTHORITY

The Supreme Court recognised privacy concerns surrounding access to personal documents and records. Its broader principles support scrutiny of unjustified access to sensitive personal information, including medical and immune-profile records. The case does not specifically determine the admissibility of immune-based identification.

5. PRACTICAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Organisations using immunity-based identification technologies should adopt the following safeguards:

Establish a clear legal basis and document the specific purpose of each test.

Obtain appropriate informed consent unless a valid legal exception or compulsory statutory authority applies.

Validate the scientific method and record its accuracy, limitations, and potential sources of error.

Maintain chain-of-custody records, sample integrity, laboratory documentation, and independent verification where appropriate.

Restrict access to identifiable immune-profile information and implement secure storage, transmission, and disclosure procedures.

Establish justified retention and destruction schedules consistent with applicable law.

Provide appropriate expert disclosure and opportunities to challenge scientific conclusions in judicial proceedings.

Conduct additional ethical and regulatory review when testing involves human-subject research, clinical trials, or public-health surveillance.

6. CONCLUSION

Immunity-based identification technologies have potential value in medicine, forensic science, and public-health administration, but their legal status depends on the particular application and governing legal framework. In India, constitutional privacy, protection against compelled self-incrimination, evidentiary rules, and applicable biological-sample collection laws provide important safeguards. The cited cases establish relevant constitutional and evidentiary principles, although none of the Indian decisions discussed specifically settles the legal status of every immunity-based identification technique. Their use must therefore be justified by lawful authority, scientifically reliable methods, proportionate data collection, and appropriate procedural safeguards.