INTRODUCTION
The unlocking of your phone, making payments through PhonePe, and accessing the Secure Folder on a Samsung smartphone. What is common in all these actions? The use of biometrics. Most of us unlock our phones using our fingerprints or sometimes even the facial recognition feature. PhonePe allows its users to enter their PIN or use their fingerprints while making payments. The Secure Folder in a Samsung smartphone stores private images, documents, notes, contacts, etc. which can only be accessed using the owner’s fingerprints. However, fingerprints are not the only biometric identifiers though they might be the most widespread ones.
Biometrics constitutes two words; ‘bio’ meaning life and ‘metric’ meaning measure. Generally defined, it is the fastest way to identify and authenticate an individual using recognizable data unique to every individual. Biometric data, therefore, refers to the information derived from biometric identifiers. Some commonly known identifiers include fingerprints, iris and retina scans, voiceprints, scans of face geometry, etc. Recently, behavioural biometrics such as gait, gestures, and body language are also gaining relevance[1]. Biometrics has gained popularity and witnessed increased usage in the last few decades. Civil identification procedures like UID (AADHAR Cards), border identification, migration-related procedures, etc. use biometric data.
Often in movies and TV shows, we have seen how a thief or a killer has been tracked using fingerprints or prints of their shoes found in mud. This suggests how biometric data can be a useful asset in solving cases. Investigative agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation usually store the citizens’ biometric data, making it easier to identify suspects and solve cases. However, it must be noted that questions about the reliability of biometric evidence have always come up in court proceedings. Like with all pieces of evidence, isn’t tampering with biometric evidence also possible? This blog aims to reflect on the various areas of law that use biometric data and its value as evidence.
WHAT AREAS OF LAW USE BIOMETRIC DATA? HOW?
While we have observed the role of biometric data like fingerprints very commonly in criminal proceedings, with an increase in the use of technology, biometrics have been successful in playing their part in other areas of law. Technology is now not only restricted to e-courts but has also enhanced security on the internet i.e. cybersecurity. Some areas of law that use biometric data are:
- Various goods and services availed by the consumer use biometric data such as fingerprints or facial recognition. This makes it the responsibility of consumer protection laws to regulate how companies use, store, and protect biometric data so that transparency is ensured and abuse is prevented.
- The possibility of biometric data crossing national borders and raising questions regarding privacy and data protection cannot be disregarded. In such cases, international law and treaties oversee the cross-border transference of biometric data and provide standards for its safe and efficient use.
- Iris scans and fingerprints identify patients and access control in healthcare facilities. The US has laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act[2] [HIPAA] that govern the use of patient biometric data to promote security.
- Criminal investigations and law enforcement agencies make use of biometric data. However, deliberations regarding the use and potential privacy violations that accompany it have led courts to consider the reliability and admissibility of such evidence in criminal proceedings.
The next segment of the blog focuses on what arguments have been put forward concerning the validity and importance of biometric data and how it has affected the functioning of law enforcement agencies.
VALUE OF BIOMETRIC DATA AS EVIDENCE: A DEBATE
As can be said based on all that is covered above, biometric data can prove to be a boon in solving even the gravest of crimes. The apex court of India has acknowledged the need to include various forensic science tools such as ballistics, biometrics, forensic fingerprints, etc. thus promoting an interplay between science, technology, and law in furtherance of the aims of the law. Any forensic evidence must possess relevance and admissibility to be accepted in courts. Interestingly, the word ‘admissibility’ has rarely been used in the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872[3]. It provides for the collection of ‘measurements’, including finger and foot-print impressions[4]. Biometric data becomes relevant when the Court has to prepare an ‘obiter dicta’ upon the same. Hence, forensic experts gain an integral role in such proceedings. While judicial authorities acknowledge the dependability of biometric evidence analysis when carried out by certified forensic specialists, certain limitations to their usage have also come to be recognized. Beginning with the fact that these systems cannot be completely flawless, forensic scientists cannot expect to receive samples of biometric data from the crime scene that are perfectly in shape. There always exists a possibility of them being unclear, smudged, or even partially absent (a sign of an attempt to remove them). The surface they are found on also plays a role in their accurate analysis. Further, there have been many cases where different scientists have come forward with unalike analyses of the same biometric data samples. This lack of consistency occurs due to a lack of standard procedures established concerning their analysis. Another important aspect that must be considered is that forensic scientists are humans at the end of the day. They are bound to make mistakes and have biases. This can influence the analysis hence causing hindrances in the delivery of justice. Chain of custody refers to the documentation, tracking, and protection of evidence on its journey from a crime scene to the courtroom[5]. Keeping all of these factors in mind, the defence can always raise questions on the admissibility of such evidence by bringing up concerns such as the qualifications of the forensic scientist, preservation of evidence, and chain of custody.
CONCLUSION
Biometric data has been a key factor in closing multiple cases but is accompanied by numerous privacy, professionalism, and validity issues. Would it be ethical to unlock a dead man’s phone using his fingerprint at the crime scene? It is imminent that the lawyers will object to the admissibility of such evidence. However, there lies a huge responsibility with the Bench to intricately scrutinize and oversee the admission of such evidence owing to all the issues mentioned above. It has been observed over multiple cases that the Bench instructs the counsel not to rely solely on such evidence for acquittal or conviction. The need for other corroborating evidence has been emphasized. The debate surrounding the evidentiary value of biometric data can be seen as a clear example of a ‘double-edged sword’ that must be handled carefully while providing justice.
Author(s) Name: Suhaani Bajpai (ILS Law College)
Reference(s):
[1] Shanika W., ‘Everything You Need To Know About Biometrics in Cybersecurity’ (Privacy Affairs, 12 Feb 2024)<https://www.privacyaffairs.com/biometrics-in-cybersecurity/2024/02/index.html> accessed 18 June 2024
[2] Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996
[3] Indian Evidence Act 1872
[4] ‘Evidentiary value of Forensic Fingerprints in India’ (2020) 3(3) IJLMH <https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Evidentiary-value-of-Forensic-Fingerprints-in-India> accessed 13 May 2024
[5] Alexandrea Dillon et al. ‘Chain of Custody, Definition, Procedures & Examples’ (Study.com, 21 November 2023)<https://study.com/2023/11/index.html> accessed 13 May 2024
