A Competitive Study Of Jurisprudential Aspects Of Biometric Evidence In India, UK, USA
- IJLLR Journal
- May 19
- 2 min read
Chirag Chaudhary, Research Scholar, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Uttarakhand
Satyam Sharma, Assistant Professor, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Uttarakhand
ABSTRACT
Biometric evidence is an important tool that is used in legal systems today for identifying people investigating crimes and detecting crimes. Biometric evidence like fingerprints, DNA profiling, iris scans, facial recognition and voice recognition are being used more and more by governments police agencies and courts over the world. These technologies make criminal investigations more efficient and accurate. They also raise serious concerns about privacy, surveillance, human dignity and the misuse of personal biometric data.
This research paper looks at the aspects of biometric evidence by comparing how India, the United Kingdom and the United States use biometric evidence. The study examines how courts and legal systems in these countries collect, store and use information as evidence. In India the research paper focuses on what happened after the court case Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India which said that privacy is a right and changed how biometric data is understood under the Aadhaar framework.
The paper also talks about the Indian Evidence Act, Sections 45 and 65B and how they decide if biometric and electronic evidence can be used in court. The paper compares this to the United States, where courts have allowed the police to collect data more widely especially after the case Maryland v. King. It also compares it to the United Kingdom and European courts which put emphasis on proportionality and protecting privacy especially in the case S. And Marper v. United Kingdom.
The research paper also identifies problems with biometric evidence, including mistakes in technology biases in algorithms lack of transparency in forensic methods weak rules to protect people and the risk of mass surveillance. It points out that India does not have a law to govern biometric evidence and stresses the need for stronger rules, independent oversight, and accountability in forensic science and safeguards to protect privacy.
The paper concludes that while biometric evidence can make the criminal justice system stronger and investigations more efficient using it without checks can threaten the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution and the right, to a trial. Therefore we need a legal framework to ensure that technology is used within the limits of what is morally right follows due process and protects individual biometric evidence rights.
