The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a petition that challenges the constitutional validity of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. The petition seeks a declaration that the law is void and unconstitutional. It claims the statute violates Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia asked the Union Government, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the Delhi Government to file responses. The Court issued notice to the Ministries of Law & Justice and Home Affairs as well.
The 2022 law allows police to collect, preserve and process physical and biological data to aid criminal investigations. The data includes photographs, fingerprints, retina scans, behavioural attributes and DNA.
Petition by students over alleged coercion by Delhi Police
Two students filed the petition. They allege that Delhi Police coerced them to give photographs and fingerprints. The students say this happened after they joined a peaceful campus stand-in protest.
The petition also challenges the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Rules, 2022. It argues that the Act and Rules create an irrational classification of people and situations. It also claims the framework intrudes disproportionately into the right to privacy.
Petitioners cite proportionality and Puttuswamy
Senior Advocate Diya Kapur appeared for the petitioners. She argued that the law does not distinguish between hardened criminals and people accused of minor offences.
She also argued that the NCRB can retain biometric data for 75 years. According to her, such retention fails the proportionality test. She relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.S. Puttuswamy on the right to privacy.
Advocates Apar Gupta, Abhinav Sekhri, Naman Kumar, Indumugi C., Avanti Deshpande, Manik Gupta, Naibedya Dash and Raghav Kumar also appeared for the petitioners.
Challenge to “open-ended” discretion and 75-year retention
The petition argues that the Act and Rules give State authorities open-ended and uncanalised discretion. It says authorities can collect sensitive personal information from almost anyone who comes into contact with the criminal justice system. The petition points to convicts, people arrested or detained for any offence, and persons asked to furnish security for good behaviour or to maintain peace.
The petition highlights Section 4(2) of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules. It says these provisions allow the State to retain “measurements” for 75 years. The petition also says the law does not lay down a clear procedure to destroy or dispose of these records.
It further challenges Rule 5(4). The petition says the Rule leaves the process to a “Standard Operating Procedure” set by authorities. According to the petitioners, this approach allows excessive discretion.
The petition claims long-term storage of sensitive personal data violates Articles 14, 19, 20(3) and 21. It also argues that the framework does not provide automatic deletion when a person is acquitted. Instead, it forces acquitted persons to apply for deletion.
