India’s 2022 forensic law marks shift from colonial-era framework, says National Law University VC

Political & Constitutional Dimensions: The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, was passed by Parliament to modernise forensic evidence collection. The government has argued that the act enhances the efficiency of criminal investigations and helps in faster conviction rates, aligning with the constitutional mandate under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to ensure fair trials. Critics, however, have raised concerns about potential violations of the Right to Privacy, which was declared a fundamental right under Article 21 in the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy judgment (2017). Privacy advocates argue that the collection of biometric data, especially from persons not yet convicted, could lead to surveillance overreach. Prof. Singh’s call for constitutional safeguards reflects these concerns, urging a balance between technological advancement and individual rights.

Economic & Financial Impact: The implementation of the 2022 Act requires significant investment in forensic infrastructure, including the establishment of a National Forensic Data Centre, training of personnel, and procurement of equipment such as DNA analysers and biometric scanners. According to government estimates, the National Mission on Forensics (2023) allocated funds to states for modernising forensic labs. [Source: General Knowledge] The budgetary allocation for the Ministry of Home Affairs has seen increases for forensic capacity building. Critics argue that the cost of implementation may strain state exchequers, especially in smaller states, and that without proper audit, financial resources could be misused. Prof. Singh’s emphasis on secure digital infrastructure implies the need for substantial financial outlay to prevent data breaches.

Social Dimensions: The 2022 Act impacts various communities differently. For victims of crime, the act promises more reliable evidence, potentially reducing wrongful acquittals and enhancing access to justice. For marginalised groups, such as tribal populations and minorities, there is concern that biometric data collection without informed consent could lead to stigmatisation or misuse. The law applies to persons arrested or convicted, but not to suspects or witnesses without judicial authorisation. Privacy activists warn that the act could disproportionately affect lower-income groups who are more frequently subjected to police scrutiny. Prof. Singh’s insistence on constitutional safeguards suggests that protection of individual rights must be central to implementation to avoid social inequity.

Governance & Administrative Aspects: Implementation challenges include the lack of trained forensic personnel, inadequate lab infrastructure in rural areas, and digital security risks. The 2022 Act requires states to establish forensic protocols in coordination with the central government, raising cooperative federalism issues. States with weaker administrative capacity may struggle to comply. Prof. Singh’s recommendation for national forensic standardisation protocols is crucial to ensure uniformity. However, without a robust data protection framework (the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is in place, but its application to government data is debated), governance of sensoreddata remains a concern.

International Perspective: Many countries, including the UK and the US, have modern forensic laws that allow collection of DNA and biometric data from arrestees. The UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) permits DNA collection from anyone arrested for a recordable offence, with safeguards for retention and deletion. The US has the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 authorising federal collection. India’s 2022 Act is seen as aligning with these global practices. Prof. Singh’s presentation at IAFS-2026 highlights that India’s framework is now closer to internationally accepted standards. However, international human rights bodies like the UN Human Rights Committee have cautioned against indiscriminate biometric collection, urging proportionality. India’s act does not specify retention periods, which could lead to challenges.