Criminal Procedure Bill: By voice voting, the Lok Sabha passed the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022 on Monday. It aims to overturn the Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920, allowing for the collection, storage, and analysis of physical and biological samples, including retina and iris scans of those who have been convicted, imprisoned, or detained.
In response to the proposed law’s debate, Union Home Minister Amit Shah stated that its main purpose was to increase the country’s conviction rate, defend the human rights of millions of law-abiding residents, and send a strong message to society. He stated that it had not been introduced for any illegal purposes. The majority of Opposition lawmakers encouraged the government to refer the bill to a parliamentary standing or select committee for further review and revision.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data from 2020, the overall conviction rate in murder cases was merely 44 percent; 39 percent in rape cases; 24 percent in attempted murder cases; 38 percent in robbery cases; and 29 percent in dacoity cases, according to the Home Minister. While the average conviction rate in the United Kingdom was 83.6 percent, it was 68 percent in Canada, 82 percent in South Africa, 97 percent in Australia (2020-21), and 93 percent in the United States. He claimed that all of these countries were champions of human rights and had more stringent legislation in place.
Mr. Shah stated that the Bill aimed to provide the police with the resources they need to secure court convictions. He said that he was putting the “T” in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2014 call for “SMART [Strict and Sensitive, Modern and Mobile, Alert and Accountable, Reliable and Responsive, Techno savvy and Trained]” policing with the proposed bill.
Human rights violations
In response to members of the Opposition who raised the subject of human rights, the Home Minister stated that they should be concerned about the human rights of law-abiding victims of crime. He added that the federal government was working on prison changes as well.
During Bill’s debate, members of the opposition raised concerns about data protection, the potential misuse of the proposed law, and violations of citizens’ right to privacy and other fundamental rights. Mr. Shah promised them that any data breach or misuse would be prevented by a technology-driven watertight procedure. He stated that data would be accessed through queries.
Mr. Shah acknowledged that some of the concerns were reasonable and that they will be addressed while the guidelines were being developed. He would make modifications if necessary. In response to questions concerning those held under any preventive statute, he stated that such people could not be coerced to provide samples. They could, however, provide the samples on their own. He stated that no narco-analysis or brain-mapping tests will be performed without the individual’s permission.
Biological samples can be taken forcibly from those who have been convicted or arrested for crimes against women or children, or if the crime carries a minimum sentence of seven years in prison. They can also be taken on a magistrate’s order to help with the investigation.
Taking a holistic approach through the Criminal Procedure Bill
Mr. Shah stated that the Criminal procedure Bill should not be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of a comprehensive approach and that the Central government had established several forensic science universities to strengthen the criminal justice system because next-generation crimes could not be investigated using traditional methods. A Modus Operandi Bureau was established in the Ministry of Home Affairs to investigate crime trends and provide advice to the State Police. Consultations on amending the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code were also underway. The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems have been linked to nearly all of the country’s police stations.
Manish Tewari, a Congress member, had previously stated that the Bill violated Articles 14, 19, 20 (3), and 21 of the Constitution. He said it had huge repercussions for civil freedoms and human rights, and that it would have far-reaching consequences. Bhartruhari Mahtab of the BJD expressed alarm about probable abuse, and Supriya Sule of the NCP argued the Bill breached Article 21.