Relevance: GS-2 : Functions and Responsibilities of the Union ; Structure, Organisation and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

Key Phrases: collection of biometric and biological data; Article 20 (3); Proportionality Test; BN Srikrishna Committee; Personal Data Protection Bill; Right to Privacy ; NCRB

Why in News?

• A bill has been tabled by the central government to allow the state to store biometric data of the convicts in order to ease the investigation of crime.
• The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022 bill seeks to replace Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920.

Key Highlights

• The Union government’s latest proposal to enable the collection of biometric and biological data from prisoners, besides the usual physical measurements, photographs and finger-prints, raises serious questions about its legal validity.
• It authorises the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) to collect, store, and preserve these details

Difference w.r.t Previous Act

• Increase in types of data to be collected
  • 1920 law permitted recording of photographs and fingerprints of prisoners
  • The law proposes to expand the idea of taking “measurements” to cover
    • Finger-impressions,
    • Palm-print impressions,
    • Foot-print impressions,
    • Physical, biological samples and their analysis, besides
    • Behavioural attributes including signatures [and] handwriting
• Removal of the provision of exemption from the collection of the data
  • The 1920 law enabled the taking of measurements from convicts
    • Sentenced to a prison term of one year and above, and
    • Arrested on a charge that attracts such a prison term; and
    • Who have furnished a bond for good behaviour and peace.
  • However the tabled bill allows for no such exemption on the basis of period of punishment

Concerns Regarding the Bill

• Against Right to privacy:
  • Some Members have argued that the Bill went against the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement declaring privacy as a fundamental right in K.S. Puttaswamy Case
  • It also fails the proportionality test
• Against Article 20(3):
  • Some contended that the Bill enabled coercive drawing of samples and possibly involved a violation of Article 20(3), which protects the right against self-incrimination.
• The means by which the data collected will be preserved, shared, disseminated, and destroyed has also been criticised.The Bill allows the records
  • To be preserved for 75 years, and
  • To be destroyed earlier if the person is discharged or acquitted.
• Collection of identifiable data without the safeguard of a strong personal data protection framework (as highlighted by the BN Srikrishna committee) can be problematic.
• Lack of information regarding safeguards:
  • There is a provision by which an arrested person, not accused of an offence against a woman or a child, or one that attracts a prison term of seven years or more, may disallow the taking of samples.
  • Not all detainees may know that they can indeed decline to let biological samples be taken.

Conclusion

• The Bill can be strengthened to protect activists, protesters and even innocent people. It would be in the fitness of things if it is referred to a Standing Committee for deeper scrutiny before it is enacted into law.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question

Q. State the provisions of Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022. Critically analyse the need of such a bill. Also suggest a suitable way forward.