Big Data Policing In Indian Cities
What is Big Data Policing?
Big Data Policing refers to the use of advanced data analytics, AI, and large datasets by law enforcement agencies to:
Predict crimes (predictive policing),
Identify suspects,
Track criminal networks,
Optimize deployment of police resources,
Enhance public safety.
This involves collecting and analyzing data from sources such as:
CCTV footage,
Social media,
Mobile phone data,
Financial transactions,
Public records,
Internet activity.
Significance in Indian Context
Rapid urbanization and increase in crimes in Indian cities necessitate tech-based policing.
Police departments are adopting smart city technologies, data analytics platforms.
Challenges include privacy concerns, data protection laws, misuse of data, and lack of clear legal framework.
Use of facial recognition technology (FRT) and social media monitoring is rising.
Balancing public safety with constitutional rights (privacy, freedom of expression) is a key challenge.
Legal and Constitutional Dimensions
The Right to Privacy is a fundamental right (Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017).
Police use of data must respect:
Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty),
Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression),
Data Protection principles (pending legislation),
Due process and proportionality.
⚖️ Key Case Laws Related to Big Data Policing, Privacy, and Surveillance in India
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Privacy Judgment)
Facts: Petition challenged the government’s Aadhaar project and other state surveillance.
Held:
Supreme Court declared Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Any state action involving data collection, storage, or surveillance must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
Emphasized that surveillance without adequate safeguards violates constitutional rights.
Significance: This case forms the bedrock of privacy jurisprudence, impacting how police can use big data and surveillance tools.
2. Brijesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) - Allahabad High Court
Facts: The police used facial recognition technology (FRT) to identify and arrest individuals allegedly involved in riots.
Held:
The court acknowledged the utility of FRT but stressed the need for transparency, accuracy, and non-arbitrariness.
Police must ensure proper checks before arresting based on algorithmic matches.
Emphasized that use of AI and big data should be compliant with constitutional safeguards.
Significance: One of the early cases addressing AI-based policing and due process.
3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case - II) (2018) 1 SCC 791
Facts: Challenge to the use of Aadhaar biometric data for government services and law enforcement.
Held:
Court upheld the use of Aadhaar with strict privacy safeguards.
Police can use biometric data only with statutory backing and safeguards.
Emphasized need for data protection legislation before widespread surveillance or data use.
Significance: Provided a legal framework for biometric data use, relevant to big data policing tools.
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized offensive online speech.
Held:
Section 66A was struck down for being vague and overbroad.
Recognized freedom of expression online.
Implied that data monitoring by police should not violate free speech rights.
Significance: Sets limits on police surveillance of social media and big data monitoring.
5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
Facts: Challenge to unauthorized phone tapping by police and government agencies.
Held:
Phone tapping is an invasion of privacy, permissible only under strict statutory procedures.
Court laid down procedural safeguards and accountability for surveillance.
Significance: Though before big data era, this case lays down important principles for lawful interception, applicable in big data policing.
6. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
Facts: Challenge to internet shutdowns and online surveillance in Jammu & Kashmir.
Held:
Internet shutdowns are constitutional only if necessary and proportionate.
Implied that policing via internet and big data must not arbitrarily restrict digital rights.
Significance: Protects digital freedoms from unchecked state surveillance in policing.
🔍 Key Issues and Challenges in Big Data Policing in India
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Lack of Data Protection Law | India does not yet have a comprehensive data protection statute (Personal Data Protection Bill pending). |
| Privacy Risks | Massive data collection risks misuse, profiling, wrongful arrests. |
| Algorithmic Bias | AI tools may reflect bias, causing discrimination in policing. |
| Transparency and Accountability | Police algorithms often opaque, making judicial oversight hard. |
| Legal Safeguards | Need laws regulating data collection, retention, access, and sharing by police. |
⚙️ Examples of Big Data Policing Initiatives in Indian Cities
Delhi Police’s Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS): Centralized database of crimes and criminals.
Mumbai Police’s Social Media Monitoring: Track threats and communal tensions.
Facial Recognition in Bengaluru: Identifying suspects from CCTV footage.
Predictive Policing Pilot Projects: Using data analytics to forecast crime hotspots.
✅ Conclusion
Big Data Policing holds promise for efficient, proactive law enforcement in Indian cities but is fraught with constitutional, ethical, and legal challenges. Indian courts have begun shaping a framework to ensure data-driven policing respects privacy, free expression, and due process.
Ongoing debates focus on need for comprehensive data protection laws, transparency in AI use, and judicial oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments