advertisement
Introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday, 28 March, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill 2022 is slated to replace the Prisoners Act 1920.
While the Prisoners Act authorises the collection of certain identifiable information about specified persons (such as convicts for purposes of investigation of a crime), the current bill would expand the ambit of both the information (identification markers) to be collected, as well as the persons from whom this information can be extracted.
The bill also authorises the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) to collect, store, and preserve these details for 75 years.
Following the introduction of this bill, legal experts and activists have voiced a slew of privacy-related concerns with its provisions. These concerns largely pertain to the following aspects of the bill:
Expansion of identification characteristics
Expansion of the categories of people the data will be gathered from
Collection and storage of this information with the NCRB
Speaking to The Quint, Apar Gupta, lawyer and executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), said:
In Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr vs Union Of India, the apex court had affirmed in 2017, that the Constitution of India guarantees each individual a fundamental right to privacy.
But before further delving into the concerns pertaining to the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill 2022, it is important to understand what kind of information can be collected, and whom it can be collected from.
Besides the finger and footprint impressions permitted for collection under the old Prisoners Act, the new bill would permit the collection of:
Palm-print impressions
Iris and retina scans
Behavioural attributes such as signatures and handwriting
Other physical and biological samples, such as blood, semen, hair samples and swabs, as well as their analysis
These details can be collected from any person who has been:
Convicted of an offence
Ordered to give security for his good behaviour or for maintaining peace under relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Arrested in connection with an offence, or detained under any preventive detention law
It is pertinent to note that while the first two categories of persons were already covered under the existing act, the third category has been incorporated into the new bill.
"The Puttuswamy Judgment says that any law which might infringe upon right to privacy, has to follow certain principles," Maansi Verma, lawyer and founder of civic engagement initiative Maadhyam, told The Quint.
"If we look at the bill from that perspective, then it does seem like a lot of those requirements have not been met," Verma added, before going on to point out that it is not very clear what the necessity is in this case.
"For instance, there are confusing statements about increasing the conviction rate, which makes it seem like the only reason conviction rates are low is because we don’t have access to these measurements," she explained.
"But that might not be the case. In a criminal trial, conviction rate could be low for a variety of reasons, and there is no research that the government can cite to establish the point that the conviction rate is low because the government did not have access to these measurements," Verma added.
"Similarly the proportionality: Since we are not very clear on the objective (of the bill), the extent to which infringement of privacy will happen and whether it will help in achieving that objective is again not established," Verma pointed out.
Commenting on the vagueness of the language used in the bill, she also said: "The bill leaves a lot of aspects open-ended, which perhaps, will be clarified later in the rules." However, according to Verma, this amounts to what the courts call "excessive delegated legislation," which can render a law unconstitutional.
But what exactly does excessive delegated legislation mean? In essence, excessive delegate legislation occurs when Parliament leaves crucial aspects of a law to later be framed by the executive or the bureaucracy as rules.
This becomes a problem because such rules don't have to be placed before Parliament, and therefore are not subject to debate and discussion and scrutiny.
The International Freedom Foundation also said that the new law “dangerously expands” the purpose of this kind of legislation from “identification” of the perpetrator of a crime to the establishment of "the crime of the accused.”
“This is dangerous breach of privacy as there are little safeguards,” it added.
Verma suggested that the bill could have avoided being a potential violation of the right to privacy if there were some built-in safeguards:
Expressing concern over the expansion of characteristics from “measurements” to “attributes” and “analysis”, Apar Gupta, meanwhile, said:
Observing that while the law “limited the gathering of information from people convicted of an offence with a punishment of more than one year or released on surety as an undertrial” and as per the bill “any person arrested may as per the discretion of a police officer be required to provide such, ‘measurements’," Gupta also, said:
“The discretion as per my reading of a proviso to this clause is muddy and makes this discretionary in favour of a police officer,” Gupta further added.
Meanwhile, the Internet Freedom Foundation also said in a tweet that it is not properly understood if “biological data” that can be collected will include DNA or not.
“DNA use in criminal investigation has been the subject of study under the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2018…” the non-governmental organisation, that does work on digital rights and liberties, added.
According to the IFF, “potentially the most concerning provision is the databasing, which will be done by the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) provided under Clause 4.”
Pointing out that the NCRB is as of now supervised and controlled by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Verma suggested that this could raise issues of interference with the federal structure as well.
Even though the Centre has said that the state government can carry out similar activities through the agency of their choice, the bill does arguably amount to the Centre stepping into the jurisdiction of the state in several ways. But why is this important?
"When all of this has been centralised, there may be less transparency around how the central agency is carrying out its role, and an individual will neither have that much information available nor will they have that kind of access to remedies," Verma added.
Thus, it can take the remedy further away from individuals when the process gets centralised.
The two over-arching concerns that emerge from our conversation with experts are vagueness of the language of the bill and potential violation of the right to privacy.
Clearly, these two concerns are intertwined, as well. If the language of the bill was to be made more specific, the attributes more defined, the safeguards prominently illustrated, the privacy-related concerns may, at least, diminish.
So, what can be done now? Is there a solution in sight.
Citing "extreme concerns," the IFF has urged a reference of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill 2022 to an appropriate standing committee for scrutiny.
“This is especially to ensure compliance of the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy (Right to Privacy) Judgement (sic)," it said.
Seconding the requirement for reference to a standing committee of the Parliament, their eExecutive director told The Quint, that the DNA Use and Regulation of Technology Bill was similarly referred to a standing committee when objections arose, during a debate in the House.
Verma, on her part, suggested that vague language may create a tilted power dynamic between the State and the citizen.
"From my experience, vague language in a criminal law almost always ends up advantaging the State," she said.
"Usually, in case of vague language, the State can take the benefit of expanding its powers, till somebody takes the matter to the courts."
Thus, her suggested solution echoes that of IFF:
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined