Delhi High Court seeks MHA's response to plea against law allowing police to collect DNA, biometrics of accused

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the State of Delhi on a plea challenging the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, and the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Rules 2022. .The law allows police to collect, store, and analyse physical and biological samples including retina scans, behavioural attributes and DNA from convicts, arrested persons and others to aid investigations. The 2022 law replaced the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. .A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia sought the responses of the Central and Delhi governments..The plea was filed by two students of a university in Delhi who were detained by the police last year for participating in a peaceful protest. They claimed that police officials coerced them into providing biometric samples.Senior Advocate Diya Kapur appeared for the petitioners and stated that under the new law, even for a minor offence, the details of the accused persons are sent to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)."Let’s say I am convicted for a very minor offence or even accused, like participating in a protest. Do I deserve to have my measurement in the NCRB? All these measurement concern my right to privacy under Puttaswamy [the Supreme Court judgement recognising right to privacy]," Kapur said.She added that there are concerns about who stores and gets access to this data..Apart from challenging the constitutional validity of the laws, the petitioners have sought direction to delete and destroy their data collected by the police. The petitioners argued that the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, and the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Rules 2022 permit disproportionate and intrusive data collection from convicts, arrestees and detainees. The data can be stored for up to 75 years and can be shared broadly through the NCRB. It was contended that the law lacks safeguards, fails the proportionality test laid down in the Puttaswamy case and amounts to excessive delegation..Along with Senior Advocate Diya Kapur, advocates Apar Gupta, Abhinav Sekhri, Naman Kumar, Indumugi C and Avanti Deshpande appeared for the petitioners. .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.