Prisoners identification act

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022, which authorises investigating officers,
namely prison officers or the police, to collect sensitive and personal biometric data, defined
as ‘measurements,’ of prisoners, has been passed by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha this week.

Biometric data to be collected under this Bill includes physical and biological samples such
as fingerprint and palm print impressions, iris and retina scans, and photographs. It also
proposes to collect behavioural traits, including handwriting and signatures.

A regulatory and scientific examination of the Bill clearly indicates grave constitutional
violations as it falls short of the fundamental right to equality (provided by Article 14), the
right against self-incrimination (provided by Article 20(3)), and the right to privacy (provided
by Article 21) of the Constitution of India.

The Bill warrants significant concern over excessive delegation of power to various
functionaries and authorities under the Bill, including prison officers and the police. An
unreasonable classification is also created by the Bill between classes of persons who may
and who may not be compelled to give their sensitive personal information. Further,
numerous other provisions fail to lay down any principle that may justify this classification
presenting arbitrariness.

Including the collection of data related to behavioural traits poses a violation of the right
against self-incrimination as such collection can constitute measurements amounting to a
testimonial nature. Coercive collection of such samples solidifies the violation of Article
20(3).

The Bill poses grave violations of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
These range from unreasonable classification to arbitrariness. Further, it delegates
legislative authority to the executive excessively in a manner that violates Constitutional
provisions.

The concern expressed over the privacy of the data collected under the Bill is undoubtedly
significant. It disregards the doctrine of proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court in
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017). Moreover, there is no rational connection
between what the Bill aims at and the persons who are forced to provide their
measurements under the Bill, which renders the Bill ineffective for reaching those aims