The criminal procedure (identification) act came into force in August, 2022, a contentious law that permits and provides legal sanctions to police officers, prison officers, and enforcing agencies to collect measurements of convicts or those who have been arrested for an offence. The term "measurements" has been defined by the ministry of law as including finger-impressions, palm-print impressions, foot-print impressions, photographs, iris and retina scan, physical, biological samples and their analysis, behavioral attributes including signatures, handwriting or any other examination referred to in section 53 or section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973( now Section 51 and 52 of BNSS).

It replaced the previous colonial era law, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, The national crime records bureau will be the central agency and is accountable for collecting the record of measurements from State Government or Union territory Administration or any other law enforcement agencies , storing , preserving and (if need be) destroying the physical and biological samples of convicts as well as those accused of crimes at national level.

The collected measurements can be stored upto 75 years and the National crime record bureau is free to share the measurements with any law enforcement agency. Ultimately this law's intention is to collect unique identification of those involved with crime to help investigating agencies solve cases. This will assist authorities in gathering adequate legally acceptable evidence and establishing the accused's offence.It will also increase conviction rates as it will make investigation more efficient and proficient.

Features Of Cp(I)A,2022 Includes:

• Taking measurements by authorized personnel
• Storage of measurement records
• Preserving the personal data
• Sharing of the measurements to help in investigation
• Destruction of records

Why Was The Previous Act Replaced By This?

Numerous factors affected the decision to replace Identification of prisoners act, 1920 such as the advancement in forensic technology which currently provides more ways to collect personal information of convicts than the prescribed ways in IPA, 1920. In the State of UP vs Ram Babu Misra case, the Supreme Court also highlighted the need to amend this law. In the context of contemporary times there was also a need to increase the scope of measurements to include more information.

Further, under the CP(I)A,2022 the people whose data can be collected has been expanded to include not only arrested and convicted persons, but also individuals who have been 'detained under preventive laws'.

The significant thing that distinguishes CP (I) A, 2022 from IPA, 1920 is that it provisions for the use of modern expertise and technology. All the measurement records collected will be stored digitally/electronically.

Controversy With Cp (I)A, 2022

The bill was heavily censured by the opposition, they claimed the law as "draconian" and "a direct violation of fundamental rights". Additionally, the proposed measure raises concerns about how it may affect the right to privacy under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 given that India lacks a data protection framework. The Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution's right to privacy may be violated by a number of provisions in the Act. Additionally, a statute may not meet the requirements of Article 14 for equality of treatment and fairness. Furthermore the 2022 Act makes anyone who resists or refuses to enable someone to take measurements criminally liable.

According to Section 6 of the 2022 Act, impeding a public official in the performance of their duties is punishable by imprisonment for a term up to three months, a fine up to 500 rupees, or a combination of both, as well as a criminal offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This amounts to forcible extraction of testimonial response. Such is in violation of an individual's right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and further impinges on the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This also allows for misuse of power by police officers and jail personnels as it gives discretionary ability to take measures "if so required,".

Despite the landmark decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India that established a four-fold test of proportionality to satisfy the infringement of the right to privacy, the 2022 Act restricts the fundamental right to privacy without demonstrating the proportionality of the Act.

More criticism was raised by the Act's ambiguous phrasing, as well as by the rules on how long data must be retained that seemed superfluous given the absence of data protection legislation. The act empowers NCRB to specify the guidelines and procedure for: (i) taking measurements, (ii) handling and storage of these records, (iii) the processing and matching of the records, and (iv) destruction and disposal of records, through SOPs. The separation of the functions between the entity that provides guidelines and the entity that must abide by them may be distorted in this situation as NCRB will issue guidelines for itself.

Of course, morality is a separate problem. Is it morally acceptable to keep a record of a convict's personal information? Even if they are only suspects? What if it turns out they are not guilty? Will the amount of data saved differ between minor and egregious crimes? All of these queries have the potential to spark discussion and divergent viewpoints. It's safe to say that the judiciary will decide the destiny of this statute, therefore we must wait.

Conclusion:
The 2022 Act is aimed at improving prisoner identification techniques and making the investigation process more productive , however when it was passed, it was heavily criticised, with critics calling it as excessive, disproportionate, arbitrary, devoid of substantive due process ,and posing data privacy concerns. Consequently Advocate Mr. Harshit Goel approached the High Court of Delhi for a judicial review of Sections 2(1)(a) (iii), 2(1) (b), 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the 2022 Act.

The Delhi high court on April 21 had issued notice to the Union government on a Public Interest Litigation challenging numerous provisions of the law dealing with vague definitions of terms such as "measurements"; the section of people who come under the ambit of the Act; the NCRB's right to store data; discretionary powers of the authorities, and so forth. As a result, the high court asked the government for a response and listed the matter to be heard this November.

Sooner or later the High court will analyse both sides of the coin regarding the advantages and disadvantages of this Act, the fate of Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act will be decided then.