What is the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill 2022 that Opposition has termed unconstitutional?

The Centre on Monday introduced the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022, in the Lok Sabha. The Bill, among other things, seeks to provide legal sanction to the police to take physical and biological samples of those who have been convicted, arrested or detained — including impressions of fingerprints, palm prints and footprints; photos; iris and retina scans; analysis of physical and biological samples; and behavioural attributes, including signature and handwriting.

Dubbing the bill as “illegal” and “unconstitutional” and an infringement of the fundamental Right to Privacy, the Opposition sought a vote on the introduction of the proposed legislation. However, the move was defeated as 120 members voted in favour of introducing the bill, while 58 members voted against it.

Introducing the Bill, Union Minister of State for Home, Ajay Mishra Teni, dismissed apprehensions voiced by the Opposition and asserted that the move was required to make provisions for the use of modern techniques to capture and record appropriate body measurements.

The government maintains that the Bill is part of its efforts to upgrade crime-solving technology and bring it in line with global standards. It asserted that the identification process was started by the erstwhile UPA government regime with the digitisation of fingerprints for integration in the national database called Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS). The NDA government aims to integrate iris scans and facial recognition systems to the database. 

What does the Bill propose?

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022, makes it mandatory for certain individuals, convicted and accused of offences, to share biological personal data. The text of the Bill available on the Lok Sabha website, says it intends “to authorise for taking measurements of convicts and other persons for the purposes of identification and investigation in criminal matters and to preserve records and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto”.

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill seeks to: 

– Define “measurements” to include finger impressions, palm-print and foot-print impressions, photographs, iris and retina scan, physical, biological samples and their analysis, etc.

– Empower the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) to collect, store and preserve the record of measurements and for sharing, dissemination, destruction and disposal of records.

– Empower a Magistrate to direct any person to give measurements; a Magistrate can also direct law enforcement officials to collect fingerprints, footprint impressions and photographs in the case of a specified category of convicted and non-convicted persons;

– Empower police or prison officers to take measurements of any person who resists or refuses to give measurements

The bill also authorises police to record signatures, handwriting or other behavioural attributes referred to in Section 53 or section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the purposes of analysis.

In case of refusal to comply

– Resistance to or refusal to allow the taking of measurements under this Act shall be deemed to be an offence under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

– No suit or any other proceeding shall lie against any person for anything done, or intended to be done in good faith under this Act or any rule made thereunder

– Central government or state government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act

– Manner of collection, storing, preservation of measurements and sharing, dissemination, destruction and disposal of records under sub-section (1) of section 4;

Opposition’s objection to the Bill

The opposition has alleged that Bill violates fundamental right of citizens and infringes upon their Right to Privacy. It has contended that the Parliament cannot bring any law that violates the fundamental rights of citizens. 

According to The Indian Express, the proposed law will be debated against Article 20(3) of the Constitution — a fundamental right ensuring right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Puttaswamy vs Union of India case stated that any state action infringing upon the right to privacy needs to be backed by legislation. 

Objecting to introduction of the Bill, Congress leader Manish Tewari argued that the proposed law was a violation of both Article 20, Sub-Article 3 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, beyond the legislative competence of this House. He said Article 20, Sub-Article 3, explicitly states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

He also argued that taking biological samples and allaying them could lead to narco analysis and brain mapping of the accused or the arrested. 

Leader of Congress in Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said the Bill seeks to empower the police and courts to take measurements of persons who are undertrial and suspected to be involved in a case, on the presumption that he may, in future, commit an illegal act.