Two weeks ago, the Union government enforced The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act (CPI Act). Now, even a Head Constable or a Head Jail Warder may forcibly collect biometrics, behavioural data and biological samples from any crime suspect, or a convict, or anybody jailed under preventive detention laws. This law replaces a century-old colonial statute which permitted the collection of only fingerprints and footprints from either convict sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for at least one year or individuals who might be punished eventually in like manner. Such powers were not available to police officers below the rank of a Sub-Inspector. An accused’s measurements and photographs could be taken only under the orders of a Judicial Magistrate trying the case.
The CPI Act changes all this. Officials at the bottom rung of the police and prisons administration may collect finger and footprints, palm-prints, photographs, iris and retina scans, and biological samples like blood, sputum, sweat, hair, nail clippings and their analysis, including DNA profiling, and behavioural attributes such as signatures and handwriting samples. Judicial scrutiny about the necessity of such an exercise is minimal -- all in the name of improving the quality of forensics-based criminal investigation for securing a higher crime conviction rate. The consent of the individual does not matter in most cases, and refusal invites a prison term of up to three months or a fine up to Rs 500, as under the earlier law. The National Crime Records Bureau will store such information, data and samples collected from across the country for a period of 75 years.
All these things will be lawful in the absence of a personal data protection law. Conveniently, last week, the government withdrew the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, from Parliament, saying that it wants to rejig it.
Meanwhile, three months ago, in this very column, I had urged readers to demand access to the papers submitted to the Union Cabinet justifying the need for the CPI Act. Perhaps you might have tried your luck, as I did mine. I submitted an RTI application to the Home Ministry requesting the Cabinet Note. Within two weeks, the PIO transferred it to their Women Safety Division, which also looks after IT interventions for increasing the efficiency of the criminal justice delivery system. No further action since then. This Cabinet Note has also become a Sarkari secret, like several others covering important policy matters and governance-related decisions.
However, RTI created a surprising ripple effect in another quarter. Last month, in this column, I had lamented about the football game that public authorities in Jammu and Kashmir were playing with my RTI application. I had sought details of compliance with the statutory requirement of publishing details of people the police arrest every day. That RTI application, submitted to the Home Department, was shunted to Police Headquarters (PHQ) and then further down below to the districts. Now, it has reached police stations across J&K!
Believe it or not, one by one, PIOs are admitting in writing that no standard operating procedures or guidelines exist to facilitate the collection of arrest details from police stations for public display in the Police Control Room. So too with the requirement of compiling these details at the PHQ for the reference of the general public, under Section 41C of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Nevertheless, they compiled information about arrests made since January this year, forwarded it to their higher authorities and supplied me a copy -- mostly free of charge. Sometimes, RTI works magic. Now, we may use this to advocate for the public disclosure of arrestee information as a matter of routine.