Supreme Court Rulings On Predictive Analytics In Criminal Justice
:
🔹 Supreme Court Rulings Relevant to Predictive Analytics in Criminal Justice
1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
(Right to Privacy and Data Protection)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the Aadhaar scheme’s biometric data collection.
Held:
The Court held that right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Any use of personal data (including in criminal justice systems) must be regulated with safeguards to prevent misuse.
Significance for Predictive Analytics:
Predictive analytics relies on mass data collection.
Data processing must comply with constitutional privacy protections.
Algorithms must be transparent and accountable to avoid violations of privacy.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
(Due Process and Fairness in Criminal Justice)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without sufficient reasons.
Held:
The Court expanded the interpretation of “procedure established by law” to include due process with fairness, reasonableness, and transparency.
Significance for Predictive Analytics:
Decisions based on algorithms must respect due process rights.
Predictive analytics used for profiling or bail decisions must be fair and explainable.
3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
(Use of Scientific Techniques and Consent)
Facts:
Issue related to involuntary use of narcoanalysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests.
Held:
Court held such techniques violate right against self-incrimination and require informed consent.
Significance for Predictive Analytics:
Predictive tools that infer psychological states must respect individual rights and consent.
Automated profiling should not replace traditional evidence without safeguards.
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
(Freedom of Speech and Algorithmic Censorship)
Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act which allowed takedown of online content.
Held:
Court struck down vague and overbroad restrictions on free speech.
Significance for Predictive Analytics:
Predictive analytics used for policing online speech must not be arbitrary or vague.
Algorithms must not unjustly curtail constitutional freedoms.
5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2020)
(Draft Personal Data Protection Bill and Algorithmic Accountability)
Though not a judgment, the Supreme Court’s observations in this matter highlight the need for:
Regulation of data use in predictive analytics.
Transparency, auditability, and accountability of algorithms used in public decision-making, including criminal justice.
6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
(Preventive Framework and Guidelines for Technology Use in Sensitive Areas)
Though related to workplace harassment, this case laid the foundation for guidelines ensuring protection of rights when new technologies or systems are introduced.
Significance:
Lays emphasis on guidelines and safeguards when deploying novel systems like predictive analytics in justice.
🔹 Key Legal Principles Emerging from These Rulings
| Principle | Explanation | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Privacy | Data used in predictive tools must be protected under Article 21 | K.S. Puttaswamy |
| Due Process and Fairness | Algorithmic decisions must be explainable and justifiable | Maneka Gandhi |
| Consent and Self-Incrimination | Psychological profiling requires consent | Selvi v. State of Karnataka |
| Freedom of Speech | Automated moderation must not be arbitrary | Shreya Singhal |
| Accountability and Transparency | Predictive analytics require oversight and audit mechanisms | Observations in Puttaswamy (2020) |
🔹 Summary and Contemporary Context
The Court recognizes the power and risks of data-driven tools in criminal justice.
It insists on balancing innovation with fundamental rights.
Algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, and potential for discrimination are major concerns.
Predictive analytics cannot replace human discretion without safeguards.
The judiciary insists on policy and legislative frameworks to regulate AI in criminal justice.
🔹 Conclusion
While the Supreme Court has not directly ruled extensively on predictive analytics as a standalone issue, its foundational rulings on privacy, due process, consent, and freedom form the legal bedrock governing AI and analytics in criminal justice. Future rulings will likely expand on these principles as technology advances.
RELATED Blog
0 comments