Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022: Need and Concerns

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022 which aimed at replacing the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920[1] has got the President’s assent and is being introduced as the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.[2] The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on March 28 and was passed on April 4. The Bill got a nod in Rajya Sabha on April 6.[3]

The Act has holistically reformed the provisions which were mentioned in the Act of 1920 and tends to bring the police investigating techniques in consonance with modern criminal tendencies.[4] The Act, however being applauded on the grounds of scientific and technological advancements, has also been condemned by the opposition over serious allegations of privacy concerns and violations of natural laws.

Important Provisions Outlined

The Act of 2022 has widened the ambit of data collection and storage in terms of any previous legislation. The provisions incorporated are in consonance with the gradually developing criminal attitude and behaviours of the present Indian society. The Act will help to increase the conviction rate which is a serious concern in present times.

As per the report of the National Crime Records Bureau, the conviction rate in the year 2020 was 73.4% which in fact is a vague statistic because innumerable cases in India are not heard, based on the lack of evidence and even if heard, the prosecution can’t prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[5]

Hence, the provisions provide for the effective collection of data and are meant to reform the criminal justice system.

Under the new Act, the ambit of data collection has been widened. As per Section 2(1)(b)[6] of the 2022 Act, measurement consists of fingerprint, footprint, palm impression, iris and retina scan, physical and biological samples as well as behavioural attributes such as signature, and handwriting. Any other examination mentioned under Section 53[7] or Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is also included under the term measurement mentioned in this Act.

Section 3[8] of the New Act provides for the persons from whom measurement can be made. These persons include;

1. Those who are convicted for an offence which is punishable under any law for the time being in force;
2. Those who are mandated to give security of good behaviour or maintain peace under Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in pursuance of Sections 107, 108, 109 or 110 of this Code.
3. Those who are arrested for an offence are punishable under any law for the time being in force or detained under any preventive detention law.

While in the Act of 1920, only those persons were liable to give measurement who were convicted for offences punishable with rigorous imprisonment of one year or more; or were mandated to give security of their good behaviour under Section 118 of CrPC.

Section 4[9] of the new Act mandated the preservation of data, collected with NCRB. The Section says that NCRB is liable to collect measurements from State governments and Union Territories or other law enforcement agencies. It will analyse and preserve the data in digital format for a period of seventy-five years from the date of taking the measurement. Also, if the person whose measurement is taken was not previously convicted for any offence and is set free without trial or discharge or acquitted from the court, the data of such person will be destroyed by NCRB, with the consent of the Magistrate.

For the instances where the concerned person refuses to give measurement, Section 6[10] is found in the Act. It says that any person who refuses to give the measurement to a police officer or an investigating officer would be liable under Section 186[11] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Need for the New Act

It is known that the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 was almost a decade-long Act that was implemented at a time when the need for the nexus of crime and technology wasn’t felt. However, after travelling decades, the dire need for a new law that provides for scientific and technological analysis of criminal tendencies and their regulation has been felt. The Law Commission in the year 1980 recommended altering the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920[12] in order to bring it in line with modern technological advancement.[13]

In the year 2005, the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in order the empower the Magistrate to collect samples of handwriting and photograph of any person for the purpose of investigation.[14]

The scale of justice has been shaking due to the cunning tactics of accused persons who try to mould the facts and interfere with the evidence collected. The collection of data will reap the fruits of a high conviction rate and uphold the virtue of justice.

Concerns Being Raised

Undoubtedly, the Bill has a tremendous approach to evolving crime detection techniques and maintaining criminal records, but it has been challenged on various grounds by the Opposition.

The first concern levied is the violation of the privacy rights of individuals. The collection of biometric, biological and behavioural attributes consists of the crucial personal information of an individual and the collection of such data without having any national data protection law is a grave violation of the Right to Privacy of an individual which has been declared as the Fundamental Right through the case of K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.[15] It is pertinent to note that in the said case, the Court opined that information privacy is a crucial part of one’s right to Privacy. Apart from the Right to Privacy, the Bill also violates Article 14[16] and Article 19[17] of the Constitution.

The provisions of the New Act are repugnant to the judgement of the court in the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka.[18] The court ruled that narco analysis of a person is inhumane and against mental privacy. While under this Act, measurement under Section 2(1)(b)[19] mentions behavioural attributes which include psychometric evaluation expanding its ambit to brain mapping and lie detector test.

It may be noted that under Section 53[20]of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[21], it is lucidly delineated that the collection of biological samples may only be done if there are reasonable assumptions that such examination will aid as evidence to prove an offence.

The next concerning point is that the collection of data can be made from any person, whether a convict, an accused or just a person to aid the investigation. The involvement of this point aggravates the stress over the question of whether the enactment of the new Act will widen the powers of the Centre as well as law enforcing officers, hence is condemned as a brutal and draconian law. Earlier, the collection can only be made through an investigating officer or a magistrate but this Act proposed the collection from lower-ranking police officers also.

Conclusion

From the above analysis, it may not be wrong to say that the new Act is that golden arrow, which, if hit the target, has the tendency to increase the conviction rate and render justice to a great scale. The Act, however being in consonance with the modern technological investigation methods has several major lacunas that need to be altered. The enactment of the Act will serve a great purpose and justice will be done with the objective for which it is introduced, albeit there is a need for reformation which will realise after the Act travel a considerable period of time.

References

[1] The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, No. 33, Acts of British Parliament (British India).

[2] The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, No. 11, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).

[3] President gives assent to Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, THE HINDU (Apr. 19, 2022, 08:42 PM), https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/news/national/president-gives-assent-to-criminal-procedure-identification-bill/article65335826.ece/amp/.

[4] HT Correspondent, Criminal Identification Bill gets Parliament nod, HINDUSTAN TIMES (Apr. 7, 2022, 06:51 AM), https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/criminal-identification-bill-gets-parliament-nod-101649270492716-amp.html.

[5] PIB Delhi, Conviction Rate, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS ( Feb. 8, 2022, 06:11 PM), https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1796564.

[6] The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, s. 2(1)(b), No. 11, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).

[7] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 53, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).

[8] The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, s. 3, No. 11, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).

[9] The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, s. 4, No. 11, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).

[10] The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, s. 6, No. 11, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).

[11] S. 186, IPC, 1860.

[12] Supra note 1.

[13] The Criminal Procedure Identification Bill 2022: The needs, the gaps and the potential hazards, DNA INDIA (Apr. 25, 2002, 08:53 PM), https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dnaindia.com/analysis/report-the-criminal-procedure-identification-bill-2022-the-need-the-gaps-and-the-potential-hazards-2948440/amp.

[14] Ibid.

[15] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[16] INDIA CONST. art. 14.

[17] INDIA CONST. art. 19.

[18] Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263.

[19] Supra note 5.

[20] Supra note 6.

[21] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).

This article has been submitted by Waniya Javed, a student at Aligarh Muslim University.