Facial Recognition Evidence In India
π 1. Introduction
Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) is a biometric method that uses artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms to identify or verify a personβs identity by analyzing facial features from images or video footage. In India, its use in criminal investigations has grown, especially by police forces and central agencies.
However, its legal admissibility, accuracy, and implications for privacy and rights have become key subjects of debate in courts.
βοΈ 2. Legal Status of Facial Recognition in India
India currently lacks a comprehensive law regulating FRT. Its use is governed indirectly through:
β Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3 β Defines what is βevidenceβ (includes electronic records).
Section 65B β Admissibility of electronic records.
Section 9 β Facts which support the identity of a person.
Section 45A β Opinions of experts in electronic evidence.
β Information Technology Act, 2000
Recognizes digital and electronic records.
Governs cyber-related investigations.
β Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 161 & 162 β Statements to police.
Section 311A CrPC β Allows police to take photographs or fingerprints with court permission.
FRT falls into a gray zone, not explicitly mentioned.
πΈ 3. Applications of FRT in India
Identifying suspects using CCTV footage.
Comparing protestorsβ faces with criminal databases.
Tracking undertrial prisoners and absconders.
Used during Delhi Riots (2020), Shaheen Bagh protests, and farmers' protests.
Employed by Delhi Police, NCRB, and state police units.
βοΈ 4. Landmark Case Laws on Facial Recognition in India
β 1. Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case (2020) β Mumbai HC / Supreme Court Directions
Facts:
CCTV footage and digital evidence played a major role. Facial recognition was used to verify who accessed SSR's apartment after his death.
Held:
While not directly about FRT, the courts allowed digital evidence (including facial matching) as part of investigation and forensic analysis.
Significance:
Reinforced that electronic records, including facial recognition outputs, are admissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act if authenticated properly.
β *2. Delhi Riots Cases (2020) β Various Accused v. State (Delhi HC and Trial Courts)
Facts:
Delhi Police used FRT to identify alleged rioters from CCTV footage. Accused challenged the evidence as unreliable.
Held:
Multiple Delhi courts have ruled:
FRT cannot be sole basis of identification.
It can only be corroborative evidence.
Police must show chain of custody, algorithm accuracy, and reliability of the tech used.
Significance:
Set precedent that FRT is not conclusive unless supported by other admissible evidence like eyewitness accounts, call records, or confessions.
β 3. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) β SC on Digital Surveillance
Facts:
Challenge to the internet shutdown in J&K. The case did not directly address FRT but dealt with digital rights and surveillance limits.
Held:
Supreme Court held that privacy and free speech must be balanced against national security.
Significance:
Though not FRT-specific, it laid groundwork to question mass surveillance tools like FRT, especially if used without statutory backing or judicial oversight.
β 4. Internet Freedom Foundation v. Ministry of Home Affairs (2021) β Delhi HC PIL on FRT Database
Facts:
IFF challenged the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) by NCRB as unconstitutional due to lack of safeguards.
Status & Arguments:
Petition claimed AFRS violates Article 21 (Right to Privacy) as upheld in Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
Court asked the government to justify the legal basis and necessity of such a mass surveillance tool.
Significance:
Key constitutional challenge to FRT as criminal evidence. Matter still pending, but has prompted debate on due process and consent.
β 5. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 β Right to Privacy Case
Facts:
The landmark judgment that recognized Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Held:
Surveillance must be backed by law, necessity, and proportionality.
Any technology (like FRT) used to identify individuals must pass the constitutional test.
Significance:
Forms the bedrock for challenging unchecked use of FRT in criminal investigations. Emphasizes individual autonomy and due process.
β 6. Tauseef v. State of Delhi (2021) β Bail in FRT-based Identification
Facts:
Delhi Police identified the accused solely using facial recognition from riot videos.
Held:
Court observed that FRT cannot conclusively link the accused to the violence unless supported by additional evidence.
Significance:
Court ruled that algorithmic matching is not foolproof, especially in crowded scenes with unclear footage.
β 7. State v. Gulfisha Fatima (2020) β UAPA & Delhi Riots
Facts:
FRT used as part of digital evidence against activist Gulfisha Fatima.
Held:
Delhi trial court emphasized the need for objective and verifiable evidence beyond just facial matches.
Significance:
Reiterated that criminal liability cannot rest on FRT alone.
π§ Key Legal Principles from Case Law
| Legal Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| FRT is admissible as electronic evidence | Must satisfy Section 65B | Sushant Singh Rajput Case |
| Cannot be sole basis for conviction | Needs corroboration | Tauseef v. State, Delhi Riots Cases |
| Surveillance must be legal & necessary | Right to privacy protected | Puttaswamy v. Union of India |
| Tech reliability must be proven | Accuracy & chain of custody essential | Gulfisha Fatima Case |
| Mass use of FRT may be unconstitutional | Pending PIL challenges | IFF v. MHA |
π Concerns with FRT in Criminal Justice
Lack of regulation: No specific Indian law governs FRT use.
Bias & Inaccuracy: FRT has been shown to have racial/gender bias.
Violation of Privacy: Collection and storage without consent raises Article 21 concerns.
Misuse for Surveillance: Potential for mass surveillance and profiling.
Weak procedural safeguards: Often used without warrants or court oversight.
π Limitations in Criminal Prosecutions
Cannot be used without proper authentication under the Evidence Act.
Must be accompanied by other forensic or direct evidence.
Courts often require expert testimony on algorithm and technology used.
High risk of false positives in poor video quality environments.
π Conclusion
Facial Recognition Technology is emerging as a powerful tool in Indian criminal investigations. However, courts have consistently held that:
It is admissible, but not conclusive,
Must be supported by corroborative evidence,
Requires compliance with privacy and procedural rights.
Until India enacts a comprehensive legal framework, the use of FRT will continue to be scrutinized under constitutional principles, especially privacy, due process, and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments