Supreme Court Rulings On Facial Recognition Misuse
Facial recognition technology (FRT) is increasingly used by law enforcement and government bodies, raising critical concerns about privacy, surveillance, and data protection. Although the Supreme Court of India has not yet delivered a judgment solely focused on facial recognition misuse, it has laid down foundational principles through key constitutional judgments. These rulings indirectly govern the use and limits of facial recognition systems.
Here are four landmark Supreme Court rulings that provide the legal framework and judicial interpretation relevant to facial recognition misuse:
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
Issue: Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution
Facts:
A retired judge, Justice Puttaswamy, challenged the Aadhaar biometric program, arguing it violated citizens’ privacy by collecting biometric data (which includes facial features).
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court stated that any use of biometric or surveillance technology (including facial recognition) must meet a three-fold test:
Legality – Must be backed by law
Necessity – Must serve a legitimate aim
Proportionality – Must be the least intrusive way to achieve the goal
Relevance to Facial Recognition:
This case provides the constitutional guardrails against the misuse of FRT. Any use of facial recognition for surveillance without a clear legal basis can be challenged as unconstitutional.
Key Takeaway:
Facial recognition can violate fundamental rights if deployed without proper legal safeguards and proportional limits.
2. Aadhaar Judgment – K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-2) v. Union of India (2018)
Issue: Constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act, which includes biometric (face, fingerprint, iris) data
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the Aadhaar Act for mandating biometric data collection and linking it with essential services, arguing it created a surveillance state.
Judicial Interpretation:
While the Court upheld the Aadhaar Act with restrictions, it struck down provisions allowing private entities to access biometric data. It held that biometric data must be protected with strict purpose limitation and data minimization principles.
Relevance to FRT:
Facial recognition systems collecting or storing data without strict purpose limitation or user consent would be considered misuse under the standards laid down in this case.
Key Takeaway:
Collection and use of facial data must be purpose-specific, consent-based, and governed by law.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997)
Issue: Constitutionality of telephone tapping and state surveillance
Facts:
PUCL challenged arbitrary phone tapping by the government, claiming it infringed the right to privacy and free speech.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Court upheld the right to privacy in communication and ruled that surveillance without procedural safeguards violates Article 21. It directed the government to establish checks and balances (e.g., prior approval, periodic review).
Relevance to Facial Recognition:
The same principles apply to FRT used for surveillance. If FRT is used without clear rules, authorization, or oversight, it is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.
Key Takeaway:
FRT surveillance systems must have transparent oversight mechanisms to prevent misuse.
4. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
Issue: Restrictions on internet access and freedom of speech in Jammu & Kashmir
Facts:
Following the abrogation of Article 370, the government imposed a communication blackout. Petitioners challenged the shutdown as unconstitutional.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Court emphasized the need for reasoned, proportionate, and reviewable limitations on rights. It introduced the principle that any restriction on fundamental rights must be based on law and subject to judicial review.
Relevance to Facial Recognition:
If FRT is used to identify and suppress dissent or protests (e.g., through real-time surveillance of public gatherings), it may violate the freedom of speech and assembly, unless strictly justified.
Key Takeaway:
Use of facial recognition to monitor dissent or public gatherings must pass tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Emerging Concerns Highlighted in Litigation (Not Yet Ruled by SC):
In Delhi, FRT was reportedly used to surveil anti-CAA protestors and identify “habitual protesters.”
Petitions are pending in various High Courts and the Supreme Court challenging the lack of regulation for FRT under Indian law.
Civil society organizations have raised concerns about mass surveillance, bias in facial recognition algorithms, and lack of data protection laws.
Summary of Supreme Court Principles Governing Facial Recognition Use:
| Principle | Source Case | Application to FRT |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Privacy | Puttaswamy (2017) | Unlawful facial data collection violates privacy |
| Proportionality Test | Puttaswamy (2017), Anuradha Bhasin (2020) | FRT use must be least intrusive |
| Purpose Limitation | Aadhaar Judgment (2018) | Facial data must be used only for the stated purpose |
| Oversight of Surveillance | PUCL (1997) | FRT systems need authorization, review, and checks |
RELATED Blog
0 comments