News Highlight
The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, which was passed by Parliament in April this year, has come into force.
What is the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
Background
- The Act that replaces the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, allows the collection of identifiable information like fingerprints, footprints from convicts.
- In 1980, while examining the 1920 Act, the Law Commission of India noted the need to revise it to align with modern criminal investigation trends.
- In March 2003, the Expert Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System recommended amending the 1920 Act to empower the Magistrate to authorise data collection such as blood samples for DNA, hair, saliva, and semen.
- The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022, was introduced in Lok Sabha on March 28, 2022.
- The Parliament passed it in April 2022.
- The primary motive cited by the government behind the introduction of the Act is to increase the rate of convictions.
Key Features of the Bill
- The Bill expands,
- the type of data that may be collected,
- persons from whom such data may be collected, and
- the authority that may authorise such collection.
- Collection of Samples
- It allows the data to be stored in a central database.
- Under both the 1920 and 2022 Act, resistance or refusal to give data will be considered an offence of obstructing a public servant from doing his duty.
- It will also seek to apply these provisions to persons held under preventive detention law.
- Record Maintenance
- The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) will be the central agency to maintain the records.
- It will share the data with law enforcement agencies. Further, states/UTs may notify agencies to collect, preserve, and share data in their respective jurisdictions.
- The data collected will be retained in digital or electronic form for 75 years.
- Records will be destroyed in case of acquitted persons after all appeals or released without trial.
- However, in such cases, a Court or Magistrate may direct the retention of details after recording reasons in writing.
- Records of juveniles
- The Act does not explicitly bar taking measurements of juveniles.
- The provisions of the (Special Act) Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 regarding the destruction of records of conviction under the Act, shall apply.
Comparing provisions of the 2022 Bill with the 1920 Act.
Objectives
- The purpose is to help the enforcement agencies in the prevention and the detection of crime.
- It is part of the Government’s efforts to upgrade crime-solving technology in line with global standards.
- It will help in maintaining law and order, which is a legitimate state interest.
Concerns over the act
- Not in line with the global standards
- Certain provisions of the Act violate Article 17 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.
- Article 17 prohibits interference with privacy and attacks on a person’s honour and reputation.
- It also challenges Rule 65 of the UN Standard of Minimum Rules for the treatment of prisoners that encourages their self-respect.
- Safety and security of data
- Critics argue that the law fails to put in place adequate restrictions on the storage, sharing, or usage of the collected data of the accused.
- Open to political misuse
- Critics have expressed concern that the law could be misused to serve the political agenda of the government in power.
- This fear stems from how officials used biometric data in the past, notably against crowds peacefully protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh in 2019-20.
- A person from whom data may collect
- Previously, the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 collected data from convicted or arrested persons only.
- The present Act grants police even more sweeping powers to collect data from persons arrested, convicted or ‘detained under preventive laws’
- Failed to distinguish the kind of cases where action requires
- Investigation in all cases does not require the collection of personal data, and the Act has failed to distinguish the kind of cases where police may require or be allowed to collect such data from accused persons.
- Terms used under the Act are extremely vague.
- Terms like ‘measurements’, ‘biological samples’ and ‘behavioural attributes’ provide a wide room for interpretation.
- This leads to transgressing the right against self-incrimination provided under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Pic Courtesy: freepik
Content Source: AIR