Supreme Court Rulings On Automated Facial Recognition Technology
1) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Privacy as Fundamental Right
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India, 9-judge bench
Facts: Challenge to Aadhaar Act and mass collection of biometric data, including fingerprints and iris scans.
Issue: Whether collection of biometric data, which includes facial recognition potential, violates the right to privacy under Article 21.
Holding / Principle:
The Court held privacy is a fundamental right, including informational privacy.
Any state-led collection of biometric or facial data must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Implication for AFRT: Even if facial recognition technology is used for policing or governance, its deployment cannot be arbitrary; consent, purpose limitation, and safeguards are mandatory.
2) Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (2021) – PIL on Facial Recognition in Delhi Police
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India
Facts: PIL challenged Delhi Police’s deployment of automated facial recognition systems in public spaces, alleging violation of privacy.
Issue: Whether mass surveillance using AFRT without legal framework violates citizens’ fundamental rights.
Holding / Principle:
The Court emphasized need for statutory regulation before deploying AFRT.
Directed the government and police to file affidavits on policies, data retention, and safeguards.
Highlighted that biometric mass surveillance constitutes intrusion into privacy and requires checks and balances.
Implication for AFRT: Mass surveillance without legal sanction can be challenged in courts; facial recognition cannot be treated as routine policing tool without guidelines.
3) Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Implicit Privacy in Digital Identity
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India, 5-judge bench
Facts: While the case directly decriminalized Section 377 IPC, it discussed privacy, dignity, and autonomy in digital contexts.
Principle for AFRT:
The Court underscored that technologies that track, identify, or profile citizens (including AFRT) must respect autonomy and consent.
Recognition that surveillance technologies intersect with fundamental freedoms like expression and association.
4) EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) v. Department of Homeland Security (U.S., 2019)
Facts: U.S. federal agencies deployed facial recognition at airports and border crossings without robust oversight.
Holding / Principle:
Court held that AFRT deployment requires impact assessments and privacy safeguards.
Highlighted risk of misidentification, bias, and civil liberties infringement.
Implication for Indian courts: Courts globally, including India, consider risk of algorithmic errors and bias when evaluating AFRT legality.
5) Amnesty International v. United Kingdom (2021)
Court / Bench: High Court of England & Wales (supreme oversight in UK context)
Facts: Challenge to use of facial recognition for policing protests.
Holding / Principle:
Facial recognition for public surveillance was held unlawful when disproportionate to public safety aims.
Emphasized need for strict purpose limitation, transparency, and oversight.
Implication: Sets a comparative benchmark for proportionality tests, which Indian Supreme Court may use in evaluating AFRT deployments.
6) Indian Supreme Court Interim Directions on Public Facial Recognition Trials (2023–2024)
Facts: Various petitions challenged pilot facial recognition projects in multiple Indian cities.
Holding / Principle:
Directed pause or conditional operation of AFRT projects.
Required government to define:
Clear purpose (crime prevention, law enforcement only)
Data storage limits (retention period, deletion policy)
Accountability measures (audit logs, grievance redressal)
Recognition that unregulated AFRT violates Article 21 (privacy) and Article 14 (equality) if misidentification leads to arbitrary action.
7) R.P. Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2022, Bombay High Court – referred by Supreme Court)
Facts: Petition challenged AFRT use for minor offences (traffic and petty crime) without consent.
Holding / Principle:
High Court, echoed in Supreme Court notices, held that AFRT must be targeted, not mass surveillance.
Blanket monitoring violates privacy and proportionality principle.
Implication: Courts are likely to deny anticipatory actions or warrants based purely on AFRT identification without corroborating evidence.
8) Global Reference: ACLU v. Clearview AI (2020, U.S.)
Facts: Clearview AI collected billions of images from social media for facial recognition and sold it to law enforcement.
Holding / Principle:
Court required company to cease collection without consent, citing violations of privacy and digital rights.
Implication for Indian context: Deployment of AFRT by private entities (or in collaboration with police) must comply with consent, transparency, and data protection standards.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases
| Principle | Case Reference | Implication for AFRT |
|---|---|---|
| Privacy is fundamental | Puttaswamy (2017) | AFRT deployment requires consent, proportionality, legality |
| Mass surveillance requires legal framework | Indian Express PIL (2021) | No blanket deployment; policies must be published |
| Targeted, not arbitrary | R.P. Sharma (2022) | Surveillance limited to suspects or public safety situations |
| Bias and accuracy concerns | EPIC v. DHS (2019), Amnesty (2021) | Courts may examine algorithmic fairness, error rates |
| Data retention limits | Interim SC orders (2023–24) | AFRT logs must have clear deletion policies |
| Private actor accountability | Clearview AI (2020) | Companies selling AFRT to police must follow privacy laws |
🔹 Practical Takeaways for AFRT Deployment
Legal authorization is mandatory before any public deployment.
Consent and notice may be required where feasible.
Auditability of facial recognition systems is necessary.
Retention and deletion policies must be strictly followed.
Misidentification or profiling can result in constitutional violations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments