UPSC Daily Editorial Analysis | 8 April 2022

Samajho's Android app | Samajho's IOS app | Youtube Channel | Telegram Channel | Instagram Channel

GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT

What the article is about?

• Talks about the concerns associated with the recent Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, passed in both houses of Parliament.

Syllabus: GS-II Constitution of India, Fundamental Rights, Criminal Justice system

Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022:

• The Bill aims to replace the Identification of Prisoners Act,1920 whose amendment was proposed in the 1980s by the Law Commission of India (in its 87th Report) and SC judgement of the State of U.P. vs Ram Babu Misra (1980).
  • The criticism and the need for the amendment were predominantly in respect of the limited definition of ‘measurements’ under that Act.
• Provisions:
  • It would allow the police and prison authorities to collect, store and analyse physical and biological samples, including retina and iris scans.
    • These provisions will further be made applicable to the persons held under any preventive detention law.
  • The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) will be the repository of physical and biological samples, signatures and handwriting data that can be preserved for at least 75 years.
  • NCRB has also been empowered to share the records with any other law enforcement agency.
  • It also authorises taking measurements of convicts and “other persons” for identification and investigation in criminal matters.
• Concerns:
  • Ambiguous Provisions and vague definitions
    • The phrase ‘biological samples’ is not described further, hence, it could involve bodily invasions such as drawing of blood and hair, collection of DNA samples.
      • These are acts that currently require the written sanction of a magistrate.
  • Undermines the Right to Privacy: of not only persons convicted of crime but also every ordinary Indian citizen.
    • The Bill proposes to collect samples even from protestors engaged in political protests.
  • Violation of Article 20: Apprehensions have been raised that the Bill enabled coercive drawing of samples and possibly involved a violation of Article 20(3), which protects the right against self-incrimination.
  • Handling Data: The Bill allows the records to be preserved for 75 years, the other concerns include the means by which the data collected will be preserved, shared, disseminated, and destroyed.
  • Unawareness among Detainees: Although the bill provides that an arrested person (not accused of an offence against a woman or a child) may refuse the taking of samples, not all detainees may know that they can indeed decline to let biological samples be taken.

Conclusion

• The concern over privacy and the safety of the data is undoubtedly significant.
• Such practices that involve the collection, storage and destruction of vital details of a personal nature ought to be introduced only after a strong data protection law, with stringent punishment for breaches, is in place.