FACIAL RECOGNITION IN INDIA’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE: BALANCING INNOVATION WITH PRIVACY AND DUE PROCESS
INTRODUCTION:
If we need to control crime, we need to have surveillance," the saying goes. But what form should that surveillance take? Facial recognition technology (FRT) has emerged as a powerful tool for law enforcement, offering the ability to identify suspects from CCTV footage, public photos, and even video recordings captured on smartphones. By comparing facial features with databases containing images of criminals, missing persons, and potentially even ordinary citizens, FRT promises to expedite investigations, locate missing individuals, and deter crime in its tracks. However, the use of FRT in India's criminal justice system raises a multitude of concerns, particularly regarding privacy, the potential for bias in algorithms, and the erosion of fundamental civil liberties.
OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF FRT
FRT offers various benefits for criminal investigations. Imagine a scenario where a crime is committed, and investigators can quickly search a vast database of faces captured on CCTV footage from nearby buildings and traffic signals, potentially identifying the perpetrator within hours. This can lead to faster apprehension of criminals, resolution of cases, and a safer environment for the public. Similarly, FRT can be instrumental in locating missing children who may have wandered away from their guardians or been abducted. These applications showcase the power of FRT as a tool for law enforcement and public safety.
However, alongside traditional methods of identification used by law enforcement like fingerprint analysis, it's crucial to acknowledge the potential for bias in FRT algorithms. These biases can lead to inaccurate identifications, particularly for people of color and women. This bias can have serious consequences, including wrongful arrests, detentions, and damaged reputations.
FRT AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The Indian Constitution provides the right to privacy under Article 21. The Supreme Court judgement in the K.S. Puttaswamy case further solidified this right. Legal procedures and legal sanctions have to be followed before using FRT, ensuring its use adheres to due process. The apex court, in the Menka Gandhi case, also emphasized that legal procedures must be just, fair, and reasonable before depriving any person of their personal liberty.
The widespread use of FRT by law enforcement raises concerns about mass surveillance and the potential chilling effect on freedom of movement and assembly. Imagine a scenario where citizens are constantly aware of being monitored by facial recognition cameras, leading to a sense of unease and a reluctance to participate in peaceful protests or public gatherings. These are just some of the potential downsides of FRT that India needs to carefully consider when developing a legal framework for its use.
APPLICATION OF FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
At the international level, organizations like the World Economic Forum, International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) have established a framework to ensure the responsible use of facial recognition technology. Some countries have even banned FRT entirely, while others have implemented regulations to govern its use.
CURRENT LEGAL LANDSCAPE AND THE NEED FOR REGULATION
Currently, India lacks a comprehensive legal framework governing the use of FRT by law enforcement agencies. While the right to privacy is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, translating this right into concrete regulations that safeguard citizens' data and limit arbitrary surveillance remains a challenge. The existing laws governing surveillance in India, for instance, do not incorporate essential privacy principles like purpose limitation, data collection limitation, data quality, oversight, and accountability. The proposed Personal Data Protection Bill, while a positive step, doesn't explicitly address the specific risks associated with FRT.
CONCLUSION
FRT presents a powerful tool for criminal investigations, but its integration into India's justice system requires careful consideration. Striking a balance between innovation and the protection of fundamental rights is paramount. Only through robust legal frameworks, responsible implementation, and a commitment to algorithmic fairness can India harness the potential of FRT while safeguarding its citizens' privacy and civil liberties.
