Apprehending the Criminal Procedure Identification Act 2020

This article, “Apprehending the Criminal Procedure Identification Act 2020” is written by Vijetha Saishree Palle a 1st year Law student at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

INTRODUCTION

The Criminal Procedure Identification Act, enacted in August 2022, signifies a monumental leap forward in India’s legal landscape, effectively replacing the century-old Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920. This legislative landmark is a testament to India’s commitment to modernising its criminal justice system, ensuring it is equipped to address the evolving challenges of crime prevention, investigation, and resolution.

The Act grants police officers unprecedented authority to collect a broad spectrum of biometric and biological data from individuals implicated in criminal cases. This includes, but is not limited to, fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, iris and retina scans, and biological samples. The collection and analysis of these samples are crucial for establishing a comprehensive profile of individuals and enhancing the accuracy of identification and the reliability of evidence in criminal investigations.

Moreover, the Act extends the scope of data collection to include the study of signatures and other human behavioural attributes. This innovative approach not only strengthens the forensic capabilities of law enforcement but also ensures that the legal framework is responsive to the complexities of modern crime. By authorising the examination of these attributes, the Act aims to provide a more holistic understanding of individuals, thereby facilitating more effective investigations and prosecutions.

The Criminal Procedure Identification Act is also notable for its alignment with the provisions found in sections 53 and 53(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This alignment ensures that the legislation is comprehensive and consistent with the broader legal framework governing criminal proceedings in India. The Act’s emphasis on collecting and analysing biometric and biological data, along with studying human behavioural attributes, underscores India’s commitment to leveraging advanced technology and scientific methods to enhance the effectiveness of its criminal justice system.

The Criminal Procedure Identification Act represents a significant stride towards modernising India’s criminal justice system. By empowering law enforcement with the tools and authority to collect and analyse a wide range of biometric and biological data, the Act aims to improve the accuracy of identification, strengthen the reliability of evidence, and ultimately contribute to crime prevention, investigation, and resolution. This legislative initiative is a testament to India’s ongoing efforts to adapt its legal framework to the demands of the 21st century, ensuring that its criminal justice system remains at the forefront of global standards.

THIS ACT CONSISTS OF MANY PROVISIONS BUT THE MAIN PROVISIONS INCLUDE:

1. Section 1 talks about the short title and commencement. The act will be in force when stated in the official gazette.
2.  Section 2 talks about the meanings of some important terms, which include magistrate:  a judicial officer of a specific rank; measurements: physical and biological samples; Police officer: an officer above and equal to the rank of head constable; Prison officer: warden.
3. Section 3 talks about taking measurements. It mentions whose measurements need to be taken, which includes a convicted person or a person detained under preventive detention law.
4. Section 4 talks about the preservation and disposal of such collected samples by the NCRB authority. These measurements can be stowed electronically for 75 years.
5. Section 5 talks about the power a magistrate upholds to order a person to give measurements.
6. Section 6 talks about what happens if the person refuses to give measurement; it informs that if an individual refuses to provide measurement, he can be penalised under section 186 of IPC or through the procedures established by law.
7. Section 8 discusses the power the central government upholds to make rules for this act.
8. Section 9 talks about amendments in the act to be made not before three years of the act’s commencement.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ACT OF 1920 AND 2022

A significant difference between the Identification of Prisoner Act 1920 and the Criminal Procedure Identification Act 2022 is that they have widened the scope of measurement. Earlier, it was just fingerprints and footprints. The second significant difference is earlier; the measurements were taken only of convicted individuals sentenced to prison for a year or more. Still, even an ordinary citizen can now be compelled to give measurements. The act (CPIA 2022) was formed in the backdrop of the State of U.P. Vs Ram Babu Mishra case, where the Supreme Court highlighted the need to amend the provisions of the Identification Act 1920.

After reading these specific provisions, one may think, what exactly will happen if an individual refuses to give measurements? Will the officer in charge compel the individual to provide measurements? If yes, won’t it infringe on our fundamental right to privacy?  One can think of numerous questions after reading these provisions. To answer them, let’s first talk about refusal to give measurements. The person who refuses to provide measurements by a magistrate’s order is penalised under section 186 of IPC, which states, “Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” The records can be preserved for 75 years; they can only be deleted if the person is set free from the trial or discharge of the offences they were alleged to have committed. However, the rule has certain advantages, such as preserving biological samples and body measurements, which might help to catch criminals more efficiently as the data will be stored for 75 years, and habitual offenders can be detected easily. Keeping these measurements digitally preserved will reduce the cost of using paper to preserve evidence by making it more cost-effective. It has its cons as well, which include data privacy, what if the data stored is misused as NCRB’s data can be readily available to others, Cost-effectiveness, digitalisation evidence will need a lot of funds, Disposal of data, as it is mentioned in the provisions that the data will be preserved for 75 years and data can be disseminated by NCRB, it does not fully explain the term disposal. Data like biological samples might start degrading if not preserved well, resulting in contamination and foul smell. Then, the biological samples will need to be disposed of, which, if not done well, will result in biowaste penalisation. It allows the taking of measurements of political protestors, and this concern was also raised by the opposition side, asking what would happen if the central government misused this act.

This act also infringes some of our constitutional rights, which include Article 14, Article 21 and Article 20(3). Article 14 talks about the right to equality. This act gives excessive powers to the police officers, magistrates, and prison warden to take measurements of an individual. Even the rejection to give measurements will result in penalisation, and there is a chance that the right to equality of an individual might be infringed.

Article 20(3) talks about the right to self-incrimination. No one can be a witness against themselves in a court of law. The word biological samples is not appropriately defined in the provisions of this act, which might result in exploitation of that individual or might result in forced narcotic testing or brain mapping.

Article 21 talks about the right to privacy. Through biological samples like DNA, one can quickly know about the generational history of the inmate’s family and the medical history of the inmate, which will result in the infringement of his right to privacy. Even the arrested person is compelled to give his measurements.

APPREHENSION IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IDENTIFICATION ACT OF 2022

Apart from this, people are not very aware of the provisions of this act, which might result in the exploitation of these people when police officers take measurements. People might think that it’s part of the procedure due to lack of education, and what if an innocent individual faces a problem due to the corruption in our country? If a part of the population in India does not know about the basic ideas of our constitution, how can we be sure that they might know about the provisions of this act? Police officers or officers taking measurements should tell individuals about the provisions of this act before taking measurements. The government also needs to present a data protection bill to safeguard the collected data of a person; this will give a sense of security that their data might not be stolen or misused. Also, there is a need to explain the term ‘Biological Samples’ so that an individual’s right to privacy is not infringed and they are not compelled to give blood, hair or DNA samples. At last, more data storage and biological sample storage banks are needed to preserve the data efficiently. It should ensure that an individual’s fundamental rights are not infringed at the cost of collecting samples because India is a democratic country, and one should respect every constitutional right of an individual.

The Criminal Procedure Identification Act, while aiming to enhance the capabilities of law enforcement in preventing, investigating, and solving crimes, raises significant concerns regarding privacy and equality. The Act permits the collection of identifiable information about individuals for the investigation of crime, which forms part of the personal data of individuals and is thus protected under the right to privacy. The right to privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of India. Any law restricting this right must meet specific criteria, including a public purpose, a rational nexus of the law with such purpose, and being the least intrusive way to achieve the objective. The Act may fail this test on several parameters, potentially infringing on the right to privacy and equality under the law.

The Act expands the set of persons whose data may be collected to include convicted individuals and those arrested for any offence and from any other person to aid an investigation. This broad scope of data collection raises concerns about the proportionality of the law and its impact on equality under the law. The Act also lowers the level of officials authorised to collect data, potentially diluting safeguards.

The data to be collected under the Act includes a wide range of biometrics, physical and biological samples, and behavioural attributes. The Act does not limit the measurements to those required for a specific investigation, which could lead to unnecessary data collection. The exception for biological samples, which allows refusal only for offences against a woman or a child or those carrying a minimum punishment of seven years imprisonment, could also violate the equality of law.

The Act allows for data retention for 75 years, which could lead to long-term data storage in a central database. This provision raises concerns about the necessity and proportionality of retaining data for such an extended period, especially considering the potential misuse of such data.

Examples illustrate the potential consequences of the Act’s provisions. For instance, a person guilty of a minor offence could collect and store their signature indefinitely. Similarly, a person who refuses to give fingerprints could have their data stored for 75 years, even if they are acquitted in the main case. These examples underscore the potential for the Act to infringe on individuals’ rights to privacy and equality.

CONCLUSION

The Criminal Procedure Identification Act of 2022 represents a significant stride towards modernising India’s criminal justice system, aiming to enhance law enforcement’s capabilities in preventing, investigating, and solving crimes. This legislative initiative seeks to leverage advanced technology and scientific methods to ensure the identification of individuals involved in criminal activities, thereby facilitating more effective investigations and prosecutions. However, as with any legislative endeavour, the Act raises critical questions regarding privacy and equality, underscoring the need for a nuanced approach to its implementation.

The Act’s broad scope of data collection, including biometrics, physical and biological samples, and behavioural attributes, necessitates careful consideration of the right to privacy. The Supreme Court of India has recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and any law restricting this right must meet stringent criteria, including a public purpose, a rational nexus with such purpose, and being the least intrusive way to achieve the objective. The Act’s provisions, notably concerning collecting data from individuals arrested for any offence and the long-term storage of data, may challenge these criteria, raising concerns about the necessity and proportionality of such measures.

Furthermore, the Act’s implications for equality under the law are equally significant. The exception for biological samples, which allows refusal only for offences against a woman or a child or those carrying a minimum punishment of seven years imprisonment, could potentially violate the equality of law. This provision, along with the broad scope of data collection and the long-term storage of data, raises questions about the fairness and reasonableness of the law.

In conclusion, while the Criminal Procedure Identification Act of 2022 represents a significant advancement in India’s efforts to modernise its criminal justice system, it also highlights the complexities and challenges of balancing effective law enforcement with protecting individual rights to privacy and equality. As the Act moves forward, it will be crucial for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary to engage in a comprehensive dialogue to address these concerns. This dialogue should ensure that the Act is implemented in a manner that respects the rights of individuals and upholds the principles of fairness and equality under the law, thereby ensuring that the Act serves as a tool for justice rather than a means to infringe upon individual rights.

REFERENCES

https://prsindia.org/billtrack/prs-products/issues-for-consideration-3946

https://www.livelaw.in/lawschoolcolumn/criminal-procedure-identification-act-identification-of-prisoners-act-218140#:~:text=The%20Criminal%20Procedure%20(Identification)%20Act%2C%202022%2C%20empowers%20police,been%20arrested%20for%20an%20offence.

https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-11/CriminalPro_14112022%5B1%5D.pdf