THE CONTEXT: The Aadhaar Act, 2016, establishes stringent regulations to protect individuals’ privacy. It prohibits the sharing of core biometric information—fingerprints and iris scans—with any entity, ensuring that personal data is not misused or disclosed without consent. Critical dilemma arises when unidentified bodies are found, and access to Aadhaar’s biometric database could facilitate their identification.
THE ISSUES:
- Legal Framework and Privacy Concerns: Section 29(1) & Proviso to Section 33 of Aadhaar Act explicitly prohibit the sharing of core biometric information for any reason. The Act states that such data “shall not be shared with anyone for any reason whatsoever,” emphasizing the sanctity of biometric privacy.
- Right to Privacy: The subsequent Puttaswamy II judgment (2018) upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme but imposed restrictions on its usage, particularly concerning data security and privacy safeguards.
- Prohibition of Inhumane Practices: In Deena Dayal vs Union of India (1983), the Supreme Court held that the execution of the death sentence must be carried out in a manner that causes the least pain and suffering, reflecting respect for human dignity.
- Respectful Repatriation: In Parmanand Katara vs Union of India (1989), the Court emphasized the obligation to preserve life and dignity, extending to the handling of dead bodies. The judgment mandated that medical professionals and authorities must treat deceased individuals with respect and facilitate timely post-mortem examinations.
CHALLENGES IN IDENTIFYING UNIDENTIFIED BODIES:
- Economically Disadvantaged Individuals: Many unidentified bodies belong to the homeless, destitute, or those living in extreme poverty. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), thousands of unidentified bodies are found annually, with a significant proportion never being claimed.
- Migrant Workers and Daily Wage Laborers: Migrant workers often lack stable identification documents and are more susceptible to accidents or crimes in unfamiliar environments.
- Persons with Strained or No Family Ties: Individuals estranged from their families, including those with mental health issues or substance dependencies, may not be reported missing, complicating identification efforts.
CURRENT INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES:
- Examination and Documentation: Police conduct thorough examinations, noting distinguishing features such as tattoos, scars, and deformities. Photographs are taken for records.
- Evidence Collection and Dissemination: Items found with the body are cataloged. Information is circulated to local and neighboring police stations, and sometimes to the media.
- Cross-Referencing Reports: Investigators check existing missing person reports for matches, though this is often unfruitful due to reporting gaps.
LIMITATIONS:
- Inadequate Fingerprint Databases: Law enforcement relies on fingerprint records of known criminals. The NCRB’s fingerprint database, though extensive, excludes law-abiding citizens, limiting its utility.
- Non-Digitized Records: Many states lack fully digitized records, causing delays. Manual search is time-consuming and prone to errors.
IMPORTANCE OF FINGERPRINTS IN IDENTIFICATION:
- Forensic Techniques: Advanced methods allow for fingerprint retrieval from decomposed bodies. The epidermal layers can be treated chemically to restore ridge patterns.
- Accelerated Identification Process: Matching fingerprints against a comprehensive database like Aadhaar could rapidly identify deceased individuals.
- Assistance in Criminal Investigations: Identifying victims is crucial in homicide cases. It enables the police to trace the victim’s last movements and potential suspects.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Limited Access with FIRs: Restricting access to cases where a First Information Report (FIR) regarding an unidentified body has been registered ensures legitimate use.
- Judicial Oversight: Involving jurisdictional magistrates provides legal scrutiny without overburdening higher courts.
- Data Protection Protocols: Implementing strict protocols for data access, usage, and destruction prevents misuse. Offenses can be penalized under relevant sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
THE CONCLUSION:
It should be ensured that deceased individuals are identified and treated respectfully is a constitutional imperative, particularly for marginalized populations. A nuanced approach is necessary—one that respects privacy while recognizing the practical needs of law enforcement and the emotional closure for families. Legal reforms should aim to bridge this gap responsibly.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of a child in the womb to establish its paternity. 2024
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Critically examine the need for balancing privacy rights with the right to life with dignity and suggest legal mechanisms.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word