House clears crime ID Bill, Opposition flags concerns

The Bill, which was introduced in the Upper House by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, will replace the existing Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, under which measurements of only “finger impressions” and “footprint impressions” are allowed.

The Bill was cleared before Parliament is set to adjourn sine die on Thursday, a day ahead of scheduled closure.

“We have brought this law to ensure speedy justice and curb long trials. This has an economic cost as well — for the Government as well as sometimes those who have been accused and may come from poorer sections,’’ Shah said, while assuring that political activists will not be targeted.

“In 2014, Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi mooted the idea of smart policing. Until policing is improved, you can’t curb crime and increase conviction. Police officers across the country will be trained in this technology,’’ he said.

Leading the Opposition charge, Congress leader and former home minister P Chidambaram described the proposed law as “illegal”, “unconstitutional’’, “dangerous’’.

He said the Bill is in contravention of two “historic judgments of the Supreme Court’’ — Selvi (2010) and Puttaswamy (2017) — that seek to protect the right against self-incrimination, right to be forgotten and right to liberty and privacy, all enshrined in the Constitution.

“We gave ourselves a Constitution. We are bound to honour the Constitution. But I’m sad to say, when a Bill like this is moved and passed in the House, we are wittingly or unwittingly breaking the Constitution every day,’’ Chidambaram said.

TMC’s Sukhendu Sekhar Roy said the Bill had been brought to “throttle the voice of all those who oppose the Government”. DMK’s Tiruchi Siva called the Bill “oppressive” while BJD’s Sujeet Kumar said there were concerns with certain sections.

The Bill proposes to allow the police to collect impressions of fingerprints, palm prints and footprints; photographs; iris and retina scans; physical and biological samples; and behavioural information, including signatures, handwriting or any other examination under sections 53, 53(A) and 54 of the CRPC.

It only grants an exemption in the form of mandatory consent for “biological samples” — except in cases where the accused is arrested for sexual abuse of women and children or for an offence carrying a minimum punishment of seven years.

Responding to Chidambaram’s concerns, Home Minister Shah said the Bill does not extend to conducting narco analysis, polygraph tests and brain electrical activation profile.

Shah pointed out that the Bill “is not in contravention of the Puttaswamy judgement’’ and that it fulfils the three conditions prescribed by the judgment, which are legality, need and proportionality. “This is a law to protect the victim,’’ Shah told Rajya Sabha.

Addressing concerns raised by members on Section 3 of the Bill, which states that “anyone’’ can be brought under the ambit of the law, Shah said: “The Government will form rules, and ensure that political activists will not be targeted, but if a political leader is arrested in criminal case, then he needs to be treated as any other citizen.’’

Opposition members raised concerns over the misuse of law and targeting of innocents, in particular through Section 3. Shah said the “question of misuse does not arise’’, and that accountability and responsibility will be fixed under the rules.

According to the Union Home Minister, the procedure will also include clocking details of the agency that requests access to the data. “We will only notify after all rules and regulations, procedures and systems have been comprehensively looked at and put into place,” Shah said.

“Some members have expressed their concerns over some sections and possible misuse. Some have questioned its constitutionality, with reference to Supreme Court judgements. The main objective of the Bill is to strengthen the cases that are tried in courts, to build capacity, to make available scientific evidence to prosecutors,’’ said Shah.

He said the data will be secure with the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), and will not be provided to any third party other than investigative agencies. “We will ensure that the privacy of no citizen is breached,’’ Shah said.

Expressing his disappointment at the opposition to the Bill, he asked: “What kind of a criminal justice system do we want? One in which, after having committed a murder, 66 out of 100 felons are acquitted?’’ He said 60 out of 100 rape-accused are acquitted, and 62 out 100 accused of theft.

“Members have given examples of other countries. Hamara kanoon sakti ke hisaab se bacchha hai (our law is an infant in terms of severity). Other countries have far more severe laws,’’ Shah said, adding that other countries have the assistance of scientific information for prosecution.

“I agree that prisoners have human rights. But those who have been murdered, and their families — don’t they have human rights? Not just terrorists but victims have human rights, too,’’ he said.

“We need to keep the police two steps ahead of the criminal and ensure that the criminal is not two steps ahead of the police. You are binding the hands of the police by raising issues of human rights and privacy,’’ Shah said, adding that the accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence in 7.5 lakh cases across the country.

“We have to understand the next generation of crime and break that circle,’’ he said.

Accusing the Opposition of creating “suspicion and fear’’ with regards to the Bill, Shah said: “Every decision taken by the Government is weighed on political scales and looked through the prism of ruling and opposition parties. You constantly raise the issue of misuse of law, because when you were in power, you misused the law. But we are not like that.’’

“Anyone can come to power tomorrow. By that logic, I should also be afraid. But I am not afraid. If there is misuse, there are courts for recourse. There has been misuse (of laws), we have fought and come out, aur adalat ka chaanta bhi lagaya hai (we have got them slapped by the courts),’’ he said.

Earlier, before being called to reply on the debate on the Bill, Shah indirectly accused former railway minister and RJD founder Lalu Prasad Yadav of trying to portray the Godhra train fire of 2002 as an accident and not a conspiracy.

The Godhra incident was first raised by BJP’s Brij Lal, a former IPS officer, triggering uproar in the House and prompting RJD MP Manoj Jha to say that such incidents cannot be blamed “on someone”.

Shah said: “The railway minister of that time had tried to give a different angle to the incident in which people were burnt alive.” Without naming Lalu, Shah said despite knowing that an inquiry by a former judge appointed by the Supreme Court was going on, a new committee was appointed by using the Railway Act.

“The committee had suggested that it was an accident and not a conspiracy. The Supreme Court had rejected this,” Shah said.

During the debate, referring to objections raised by CPI MP Binoy Viswam, Shah said: “Binoy Viswam has said that the Government is enforcing 124 A (sedition). We are not in support of misuse of 124 A but being an MP from the communist party in Kerala, how can you raise this? You have killed people. You have murdered 100 people from my party for political reasons. How can you explain 124 to us?”

The CPM-led LDF is in power in Kerala, with CPI as a coalition ally.

Shah also attacked AAP and TMC. “Sanjay Singh raised the issue of FIRs (filed against AAP) in Gujarat. I want to tell him, you have just gone to Gujarat, I don’t know if there has been an FIR against their party. If they have done something, maybe then…But if you go to Bengal, you will lose your life,’’ he said,

“Sukhendu Sekhar Roy called the Bill fascist. But the Bengal government has redefined fascism,’’ Shah said.
(With PTI inputs)