The greatest strength of a democracy is to continually improve itself through the age-old tradition of debate and experience. This is the reason that even after the Criminal Procedure Recognition Bill 2022 was passed by Parliament, the debate on it continues. This law will replace a similar law of 1920. Through this, the central government wants to create a centralized database of accused, criminals and other persons, which will contain personal and biological information of people involved in illegal activities. The responsibility of preserving it has been given to the National Crime Records Bureau. The digital data of the record can be preserved for 75 years, but if an accused is acquitted by the court, his data will be destroyed. The National Crime Records Bureau will be able to share this information with other crime control agencies. An authority authorized by law may take hands, fingerprints and fingerprints, photographs, retinal scans, signatures, photographs and voice samples and biological samples. Biological samples include blood and hair samples, saliva and their DNA analysis and its samples. The authorized person shall have the right to collect such samples. Refusal to give sample will be considered a punishable offence.
The US and Great Britain already have such a law and their centralized database has helped a lot in crime control. This experiment has also been done here in Maharashtra and it has helped them in curbing crime. On the basis of these experiences, the central government hopes that this law will prove to be a milestone in the direction of crime control. In the changing environment, the behavior of criminals and their modus operandi are becoming complex, hence such a database has become necessary, so that the persons involved in the crime can be identified and punished.
In the 1920 Act, only a police officer of the rank of a magistrate or a sub-inspector could direct the collection of personal data. Its scope has been expanded in the present Bill. Now the in-charge of the police station, the police officer of the rank of head constable and above and the head warden of the jail will also be empowered to direct the collection of such data. Many people object to this, because they believe that there is all-round pressure on the lower rank officers, it is not easy for them to act impartially and there is a possibility of abuse of authority. People also believe that the decision to collect personal data like this is a very sensitive act. In this, the right to privacy of the people and their social reputation are at stake, so the magistrate or responsible police and jail officials should have the right to direct the collection of data or information.
The new bill may mandate convicted criminals, accused and persons under preventive detention to provide their identity data. In addition, data relating to the identity of those who have been arrested in connection with a crime may also be collected. This means that if a person is not an accused and has been arrested for investigation, his sample can also be taken. Human rights organizations fear that the term ‘I’ is so broad that it can be misused, as even those caught on the basis of suspicion will also come under its purview and if they are unnecessarily tortured, then unnecessary resentment against the government Will grow.
In America, Canada and Britain also, there were initially the same apprehensions about such laws, which are being expressed here today. The right to privacy also has its limits. It is an individual right, whereas controlling crime is a social necessity. The interest of society and the prevention of crime is more important than private rights. The conviction rate for crimes in our country is very low as compared to other countries. For example, in the US, 99.8 out of every 100 accused are convicted, while in India barely 67 are found. Here most of the criminals go away due to lack of evidence. Criminals have changed their ways in the changing times. Therefore, it has become very important to adopt scientific methods for effective control over them. Criminal database would be very helpful.
It also needs to be noted here that the work culture of police in countries like US and UK is so different from ours that they cannot be ignored. Their law enforcement agencies have over the past 200 years developed a work culture in which the risk of willful misuse of the law has gradually become negligible. It may take a few decades to reach professional impartiality. Good laws or good systems will be effective only when we do police reforms and make police fully responsible towards law and society. Section 7 of the proposed law gives protection to officers for acts done in good faith, but the bill is silent about punishing them for malicious acts. Such measures should be taken so that common people can be saved from malicious action. This is necessary for a healthy democracy, so that the public’s trust in the government remains intact.
Section 7 of the bill empowers the central and state governments to make rules for its implementation. Section 9 also empowers the Center to remove the difficulties being faced in its implementation. The Home Minister has also assured to send this bill to the Standing Committee of Parliament for consideration in the Lok Sabha. Hopefully, this committee will remove these errors and take forward the initiative of crime control through this important legislation.
(These are the author’s own views)