Judicial Precedents On Facial Recognition Technology In Investigations
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Summary: While this case did not deal directly with facial recognition, it laid the constitutional foundation for challenging such surveillance technologies.
Details:
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It ruled that any state action infringing privacy must meet three tests: legality, necessity, and proportionality.
This directly impacts the use of FRT by law enforcement and government agencies, as any mass surveillance or identity tracking must pass these tests.
Significance: This ruling means that indiscriminate or unchecked use of facial recognition in investigations could be constitutionally challenged if it fails to satisfy privacy safeguards.
2. Internet Freedom Foundation v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, Ongoing)
Court: Delhi High Court
Summary: This public interest litigation (PIL) challenges the legality and constitutionality of the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) being used by law enforcement in India.
Details:
The petition raises concerns over lack of legal framework, potential misuse, absence of consent, and violations of privacy.
The Delhi Police argued that AFRS is used to track criminals and missing persons.
The case is still pending, but the court has asked the government to justify the use of AFRS in light of the Puttaswamy judgment.
Significance: This case is expected to shape the future legal status of facial recognition in India, particularly in how it's used by police in investigations without specific legislation.
3. State v. Lynch (2021) — U.S. District Court (Maryland)
Court: U.S. Federal Court
Summary: One of the first American cases where the defense challenged the admissibility of facial recognition evidence in a criminal trial.
Details:
The defendant argued that FRT used to identify him was unreliable and unregulated, and that it violated his due process rights.
The Court scrutinized the accuracy and bias issues associated with FRT, especially regarding misidentification of racial minorities.
Though the evidence was allowed, the case opened up significant discussions on scientific validity and procedural fairness.
Significance: This case highlighted how courts are beginning to question the reliability and fairness of facial recognition evidence in criminal trials.
4. Bridges v. South Wales Police (2020) — UK Court of Appeal
Court: Court of Appeal, United Kingdom
Summary: A landmark international case on the use of live facial recognition (LFR) by police in public spaces.
Details:
Ed Bridges, a UK citizen, challenged the police use of LFR technology without his consent.
The Court ruled that the police's use of FRT was unlawful as it violated the UK’s Human Rights Act, lacked clear legal standards, and did not conduct proper data protection assessments.
It emphasized the need for a legal framework, transparency, and proportionality.
Significance: This case set a precedent in Europe, showing that FRT must comply with privacy laws and human rights protections, especially in public surveillance.
5. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Summary: Though the case primarily dealt with compelling voice samples, the Supreme Court opened the door to broader biometric evidence in investigations, which includes facial recognition.
Details:
The Court held that biometric data like voice samples, fingerprints, and potentially facial features can be collected without violating Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination), as they are physical evidence.
However, the Court stressed that legal procedure and safeguards must be followed.
Significance: This decision supports the use of facial data as evidence, but underlines the need for procedural safeguards and a clear statutory basis.
Summary of Judicial Approach to FRT in Investigations:
| Key Concern | Judicial Stance |
|---|---|
| Privacy & Consent | Must be respected under the Constitution (Puttaswamy) |
| Legal Framework | Absent in India; courts are urging the need for specific legislation |
| Reliability & Bias | Courts increasingly questioning scientific robustness of FRT |
| Admissibility of Evidence | Allowed if collected lawfully and with oversight (Ritesh Sinha) |
| Public Surveillance | Requires strong legal justification and data protection assessments (Bridges v. South Wales Police) |
RELATED Blog
0 comments