Unfounded apprehensions about this Act  

News: Recently, The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022 received the President’s assent. The act seeks to repeal the Identification of Prisoners Act (IPA) 1920, whose scope was limited in nature with respect to recording measurements and whose measurements were made. 

Why are various issues raised against the act incorrect? 

The proposed scope of ‘measurements’ already exists in other statutes like CrPC.

The Act explicitly merges the scope of ‘measurements’ in the IPA and the CrPC. For example, The CrPC provides for ‘examination’ of blood, semen, swabs, sputum and sweat, hair samples etc. using modern scientific techniques including DNA profiling etc,  

The IPA already includes some provisions related to who is subjected to measurement. For example, it includes a person who has given security for good behaviour or maintaining peace, etc. 

A magistrate is already empowered to direct any person (including an accused person) to give a signature or handwriting for investigation or proceedings under Section 311A of the CrPC. 

The SC of India in the State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu (1961) has held that taking specimens of handwriting, signature, thumb impressions, finger, palm or foot print etc. do not violate the right against self-incrimination under Articles 20(3) of the Constitution. These samples by themselves do not convey information.  

Non-cognisable and most of simple cognisable offence like a chakka-jam (punishable with simple imprisonment up to only one month or fine) do not require measurement of biological samples to facilitate investigation. Only physical measurements would be sufficient to record identity.  

By expanding the scope of measurements, an individuals’ privacy is not going to be harmed.  

The Act will not harass juveniles. As per the provisions of the (Special Act) Juvenile Justice Act, 2013, the delinquent juveniles are produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. The FIR is registered only in heinous offence and the juvenile is arrested. In addition, records of conviction are destroyed in accordance to Act. 

The Act does not mandate the compulsory recording of all measurements for all types of offences. The measurements shall be taken ‘if so required’ and as may be prescribed by governments.  

The purpose is to help the enforcement agencies in the prevention and the detection of crime. 

The right of an individual will have to be considered in the background of the interests of society.  

What are the exceptions to the measurement? 

The Supreme Court in the Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010) has held that the narcoanalysis, polygraphy and brain fingerprinting are testimonial compulsions (if conducted without consent).

They are prohibited under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. These tests do not fall under the scope of expression “such other tests” in Explanation of Section 53 of the CrPC. The Court also laid down certain guidelines for these tests. 

The Act does not lay down any specific scientific tests for the analysis of biological samples. Therefore measurements would not automatically violate any constitutional provision.  

Way Forward 

It would have been prudent to add a provision in the Act for juveniles for clarity and allay any doubts.  

The period of storage of measurements of adults should be reduced by 10 years. In fact, the probability of committing a crime by any person after the age of 80 years is negligible. For example, the NCRB data shows that the number of arrested persons over 60 years of age is less than 1.5%. 

Source: The post is based on an article “Unfounded apprehensions about this act” published in The Hindu on 21st April 2022.