1. Introduction

The recording of genetic data in state registries is an important legal issue involving privacy, constitutional rights, human dignity, data protection, medical confidentiality, criminal investigation and government surveillance.

Genetic data refers to information obtained through the examination of an individual's DNA, RNA, chromosomes or other inherited biological characteristics. Governments may collect and maintain genetic information for several purposes, including:

Criminal investigations and forensic identification.

Identification of missing persons and unidentified human remains.

Public health surveillance and genetic disease research.

Identification of biological relationships and family members.

Medical research and population genetics.

National security and biosecurity administration.

However, the government's authority to collect genetic information does not automatically give it unlimited authority to record, store, analyse, share or retain that information.

Genetic information is particularly sensitive because it can reveal information not only about an individual but also about biological relatives, ancestry, inherited diseases and potential health risks.

Consequently, restrictions on recording genetic data in state registries are designed to prevent arbitrary collection, discriminatory use, excessive retention and unauthorised disclosure.

The central legal question is:

Under what circumstances can the state lawfully collect and record an individual's genetic information in an official government registry without violating constitutional privacy and data-protection rights?

2. Meaning and scope of genetic data recording

Recording genetic data means entering genetic information into an organised government database or registry so that it can be retrieved, compared, analysed or used for administrative purposes.

There are several categories of genetic information:

An important legal distinction exists between a DNA sample and a DNA profile.

A DNA sample may contain extensive biological and genetic information.

A DNA profile is a derived record used principally for identification, although it can also reveal sensitive relationships and other characteristics.

The distinction is important because storing an entire biological sample can create greater privacy risks than retaining a limited identification profile.

3. Constitutional restrictions on genetic data registries in India

In India, the principal constitutional protections arise under the following provisions.

A. Article 21 – Right to life, dignity and privacy

Article 21 protects personal liberty and privacy. Government authorities cannot collect and maintain genetic information arbitrarily.

A state genetic registry must have a legally recognised purpose and adequate safeguards.

B. Article 14 – Equality before law

Genetic registries must not facilitate arbitrary discrimination based on hereditary characteristics, genetic diseases, ancestry or biological relationships.

For example, government agencies should not use genetic information to deny public services or impose discriminatory administrative classifications without lawful justification.

C. Article 20(3) – Protection against self-incrimination

Compulsory extraction and use of genetic material in criminal investigations may raise constitutional questions, particularly where the collection or examination effectively compels testimonial information.

Physical evidence and testimonial evidence must be distinguished.

D. Article 19 – Fundamental freedoms

Genetic surveillance may also affect freedom of association, movement and expression when individuals reasonably fear that sensitive genetic information will be used to monitor or discriminate against them.

4. Important legal principles governing state genetic registries

The following principles provide a framework for determining whether recording genetic information is lawful.

1. Principle of legality

The government must have legal authority to establish and operate a genetic registry.

An administrative department cannot assume unlimited power to collect DNA information merely because modern technology makes such collection possible.

2. Principle of legitimate purpose

The collection must pursue a recognised public interest, such as criminal identification, missing-person investigations or legitimate public-health research.

3. Principle of necessity

The government must demonstrate why genetic information is necessary rather than relying on less intrusive alternatives.

4. Principle of proportionality

The quantity of genetic information collected must be proportionate to the intended purpose.

5. Principle of informed consent

Where collection is voluntary, individuals should receive understandable information concerning the purpose, storage, sharing and potential consequences of recording their genetic information.

Consent is not necessarily required in every legally authorised forensic investigation, but compulsory collection must have an appropriate legal basis.

6. Principle of purpose limitation

Information collected for medical research should not automatically become available for criminal investigation, immigration enforcement or unrelated government surveillance.

7. Principle of limited retention

Genetic records should not remain in government databases indefinitely without a continuing legal justification.

8. Principle of security and confidentiality

Access must be restricted through authentication, encryption, audit records and institutional oversight.

5. Important case laws

The following judicial decisions establish important principles relevant to the recording and retention of genetic information in government registries.

Case 1: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)

Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1.

Court: Supreme Court of India, nine-judge Constitution Bench.

Facts:

The case concerned whether the right to privacy was constitutionally protected in India. The dispute arose in the context of government collection and compilation of demographic and biometric information under the Aadhaar scheme.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court unanimously recognised privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, particularly under Article 21 and Part III.

The Court explained that restrictions on privacy require:

Legality: existence of law.

Legitimate state purpose: a proper governmental objective.

Proportionality: a reasonable relationship between the objective and the interference with privacy.

Relevance to genetic registries:

Although this case did not directly concern a DNA database, its constitutional principles apply to government recording of identifiable genetic information.

A government cannot establish an unrestricted genetic registry simply by asserting that it would improve administrative efficiency or public security.

The collection, processing and retention must satisfy constitutional requirements.

Indian Kanoon+1

Case 2: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 263.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The case involved the involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations and Brain Electrical Activation Profile tests during criminal investigations.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of these techniques violated constitutional protections against testimonial compulsion and implicated personal liberty and privacy.

The Court distinguished physical evidence from information obtained through compelled testimonial techniques.

Relevance to genetic registries:

This judgment is important when determining whether genetic collection is merely the acquisition of physical identification evidence or involves extracting personal information in a manner that raises constitutional concerns.

It also demonstrates that investigative convenience cannot automatically override constitutional safeguards.

Importantly, the judgment did not establish a blanket prohibition on DNA profiling or the retention of all forensic DNA evidence.

Indian Kanoon+1

Case 3: Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003)

Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 493.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The dispute concerned whether a matrimonial court could direct a party to undergo medical examination in appropriate circumstances.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court recognised that privacy is important but is not absolute. A court may, in appropriate circumstances, direct a medical examination where sufficient legal grounds exist.

Relevance to genetic registries:

This decision is relevant to genetic testing in parentage disputes and other civil proceedings.

However, an order for DNA testing in an individual judicial proceeding does not automatically authorise the government to enter the resulting genetic information into a permanent state registry.

The purpose, necessity and privacy implications of recording the information must be separately considered.

Case 4: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar case) (2018)

Citation: (2019) 1 SCC 1.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The Court considered the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar framework, including compulsory authentication, collection of biometric information and restrictions on the use of Aadhaar data.

Judgment:

The Court applied proportionality analysis to government collection and use of personal information.

It emphasised that the restriction of fundamental rights must satisfy a legitimate objective and must not extend beyond what is necessary.

Relevance to genetic registries:

The decision provides a useful constitutional analogy for DNA databases.

A state registry must not collect more genetic information than is reasonably required. It should also prevent unrelated use and unnecessary disclosure.

Biometric identification and genetic profiling are not legally identical, so the Aadhaar judgment must be applied by analogy rather than treated as a direct DNA-registry ruling.

Indian Kanoon+2

Case 5: S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008)

Citation: Applications Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, Judgment of 4 December 2008.

Court: European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber.

Facts:

Two individuals challenged the retention of their fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles after criminal proceedings had ended without convictions.

The British authorities retained their information in a national database.

Judgment:

The Court held that retaining DNA samples and profiles interfered with the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It found that the blanket and indiscriminate retention of the genetic information of persons who had not been convicted was disproportionate.

Legal principles:

Genetic information requires heightened protection.

Retention cannot be indiscriminate.

The seriousness of the offence matters.

Age and individual circumstances may be relevant.

Independent review and effective safeguards are important.

Retention periods must be justified.

Relevance to state registries:

This is one of the most important international precedents concerning government DNA databases.

It establishes that the state cannot treat every individual whose DNA has been collected as a permanent subject of genetic surveillance.

Bailii+1

Case 6: Gaughran v. United Kingdom (2020)

Citation: Application No. 45245/15, Judgment of 13 February 2020.

Court: European Court of Human Rights.

Facts:

The applicant challenged the indefinite retention of his DNA profile, fingerprints and photograph following conviction for a minor offence.

Judgment:

The Court found that indefinite retention was disproportionate in the circumstances.

The absence of an effective review mechanism and the failure to sufficiently account for the seriousness of the offence were significant considerations.

Relevance to state registries:

The case supports the principle that even when an individual has been convicted, indefinite retention of genetic information is not automatically justified.

Government registries should provide appropriate retention rules, deletion mechanisms and independent review.

Bailii+1

Case 7: Venkatesh Nayak v. Union of India – Emerging constitutional litigation (2026)

Legal significance:

Challenges concerning the constitutional validity of provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules, 2025 have emerged in India.

The litigation is relevant to the extent of government authority over personal information, statutory exemptions and individual privacy protections.

Relevance to genetic registries:

The outcome and interpretation of these issues may affect how government institutions process sensitive identifiable information, including genetic records.

This should be treated as an emerging legal development, not as an established judicial ruling specifically prohibiting DNA registries.

Data Security Council of India+1

6. International legal framework governing genetic data registries

Apart from Indian constitutional law, several international legal instruments establish safeguards relevant to government genetic databases.

A. European Convention on Human Rights – Article 8

Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life.

Government collection and retention of DNA information may constitute interference with this right.

Such interference must be lawful, pursue a legitimate objective and be necessary and proportionate.

The S. and Marper judgment demonstrates how these requirements apply to forensic databases.

B. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The European Union's GDPR provides particularly important protection for genetic information.

Article 4(13) defines genetic data as personal data relating to inherited or acquired genetic characteristics of an individual.

Article 9 classifies genetic data as a special category of personal data.

Processing is generally prohibited unless a recognised exception applies, such as explicit consent or a relevant legal basis for substantial public interest, healthcare or scientific research, subject to the applicable safeguards.

Articles 5 and 25 establish principles including:

Purpose limitation.

Data minimisation.

Storage limitation.

Data protection by design and default.

Article 32 requires appropriate security measures.

These provisions significantly restrict the ability of public authorities to maintain unrestricted genetic registries.

C. International human rights principles

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly Article 12, protects individuals against arbitrary interference with privacy.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 17, similarly protects against unlawful or arbitrary interference with privacy and family life.

These protections are relevant when genetic information is collected, stored or disclosed by government authorities.

7. India's DNA Technology Regulation Bill and state registries

An important legislative development is the proposed DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill.

The 2018 Bill proposed:

A National DNA Data Bank.

Regional DNA Data Banks.

A DNA Regulatory Board.

Accreditation of DNA laboratories.

Separate indices for crime scenes, suspects, offenders, missing persons and unidentified deceased persons.

Rules governing collection, retention and removal of genetic profiles.

Confidentiality obligations and penalties for unauthorised disclosure.

However, the proposal attracted concerns regarding privacy, consent, removal of profiles, excessive collection and the possible use of genetic information beyond identification.

The 2019 version of the Bill was withdrawn in the Lok Sabha on 24 July 2023. Therefore, it must not be treated as an enacted law authorising a national DNA database.

PRS Legislative Research+1

Important distinction: India does have legal provisions permitting certain forms of forensic evidence collection, but the withdrawn DNA Bill did not become a comprehensive statutory framework for national and regional DNA registries.

8. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and genetic information

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is relevant to genetic information recorded in electronic government databases.

Where genetic information identifies or relates to an identifiable individual, it can fall within the Act's broad concept of digital personal data.

Important provisions include:

However, two qualifications are important:

The DPDP Act does not create a separate, specially defined category for genetic data comparable to GDPR Article 9.

Government processing may be subject to statutory exemptions, so the Act should not be interpreted as imposing an absolute prohibition on state genetic databases.

Current implementation position: The DPDP Rules were notified in November 2025, but implementation of the Act is phased. The main processing provisions in Sections 3–17 are scheduled to commence 18 months after the commencement notification of 13 November 2025, rather than all becoming operative immediately.

Press Information Bureau+3

9. Major restrictions on recording genetic data in state registries

The following restrictions are particularly important for government institutions.

1. Restriction on compulsory genetic registration

The state should not require every citizen to submit DNA information without specific statutory authority and a constitutionally justified purpose.

2. Restriction on recording genetic information of innocent persons

Individuals who have been arrested but acquitted, or whose proceedings have been discontinued, should not automatically remain permanently registered in forensic DNA databases.

3. Restriction on familial genetic searching

Authorities should not conduct unrestricted familial DNA searches because such searches can reveal biological relationships involving individuals who have never been suspected of an offence.

4. Restriction on genetic discrimination

Genetic records should not be used arbitrarily to discriminate in employment, insurance, education, immigration or access to public benefits.

5. Restriction on commercial exploitation

Government genetic databases should not be commercially exploited or transferred to private companies without appropriate legal authority and safeguards.

6. Restriction on cross-border transfer

Genetic information should not be transferred to foreign governments or international databases without an appropriate legal basis, purpose limitation and protection against misuse.

7. Restriction on indefinite retention

A registry must establish appropriate retention periods and procedures for reviewing whether information remains necessary.

8. Restriction on unauthorised access

Access should be limited to authorised personnel performing legally permitted functions.

9. Restriction on secondary use

Genetic information collected for identifying missing persons should not automatically be used for unrelated criminal investigations or population surveillance.

10. Restriction on recording children's genetic information

Children require special protection because genetic records may affect their privacy and future autonomy. Collection should be justified by a legitimate purpose, with appropriate parental or guardian involvement where legally required.

10. Government accountability and institutional responsibilities

Government authorities operating genetic registries should maintain an effective accountability framework.

An effective registry should also maintain:

Written authorisation for collection.

Records of the legal basis for registration.

Secure storage and encryption.

Access and disclosure logs.

Independent audits.

Retention and deletion schedules.

Complaint and correction procedures.

Remedies for unlawful disclosure or misuse.

11. Legal consequences of unlawful genetic registration

Unlawful recording of genetic information may produce several legal consequences.

A. Constitutional remedies

An affected person may approach the appropriate constitutional court under Articles 32 or 226 of the Indian Constitution, depending on the circumstances.

B. Deletion of genetic records

Where retention is unlawful or disproportionate, a court may grant appropriate relief, potentially including deletion or destruction of genetic information.

C. Compensation

In appropriate cases, constitutional remedies may include compensation for established violations of fundamental rights.

D. Criminal liability

Unauthorised disclosure, misuse or tampering may attract criminal liability where the conduct satisfies the requirements of applicable legislation.

E. Administrative liability

Government officers and institutions may face disciplinary or other administrative consequences for violating applicable statutory duties.

F. Data protection liability

Once the relevant provisions of the DPDP Act become operative, applicable data fiduciaries may face statutory consequences for non-compliance, subject to the Act's exemptions and transitional arrangements.

12. Critical legal issues and emerging challenges

Several difficult legal questions remain.

1. Genetic privacy versus public security: How far should the government be permitted to collect DNA information to prevent crime?

2. Permanent registration: Should convicted persons remain registered indefinitely, even after rehabilitation?

3. Familial surveillance: Can a person's genetic record indirectly expose relatives who have never consented to registration?

4. Genetic discrimination: How can legislation prevent genetic information from influencing employment and insurance decisions?

5. Artificial intelligence: Should AI systems be permitted to analyse government genetic databases to predict inherited disease risks or identify biological relationships?

6. Public health research: Can government agencies use identifiable genetic information for epidemiological research without individual consent?

7. Cross-border access: What safeguards should apply when foreign authorities request access to national DNA databases?

These issues demonstrate that genetic registries require more than ordinary database security. They require constitutional oversight, scientific accountability and effective legal remedies.

13. Conclusion

Restrictions on recording genetic data in state registries represent an important intersection of constitutional law, biotechnology law, criminal justice and data protection.

The government may have legitimate reasons to collect genetic information for criminal investigations, identification of missing persons and public health research. Nevertheless, such authority must remain subject to legality, necessity, proportionality, purpose limitation, confidentiality and appropriate retention requirements.

The Indian Supreme Court's decisions in Puttaswamy, Selvi and Sharda, together with the European Court of Human Rights' decisions in S. and Marper and Gaughran, provide significant judicial guidance.

The central principle is that genetic information must not become an instrument of unrestricted state surveillance.

A legitimate genetic registry must operate within a transparent legal framework that protects individual dignity, family privacy, constitutional freedoms and scientific integrity.

14. Important case-law revision table

Research takeaway: For Indian biotechnology law research, Puttaswamy and S. and Marper are particularly useful together: the former establishes the constitutional privacy framework, while the latter demonstrates how that framework can operate in the specific context of forensic DNA databases.

Note: The international cases interpret the European Convention on Human Rights and are persuasive comparative authorities, not binding precedents of the Indian Supreme Court.

For a further research project, I can develop this topic into a comparative legal analysis of India, Australia, the UK, the USA and the European Union, with additional case laws and statutory provisions.