TEST OF IDENTIFICATION PARADE

 INTRODUCTION:
The idea of the Test of Identification (TI) or Identification parade is to test the veracity of the
witness in the question of his capacity to identify, from among several persons made to stand
in a queue, an unknown person whom the witness had seen at the time of occurrence.
The main questions taken into consideration in this context are –
•Whether there was opportunity to see the accused; (here distance, condition of light,
visibility conditions, eye sight of witness)
•Whether they could remember by face the accused person; &
•Whether they could identify them by such memory in the court.
Note: Identification is required in the cases where accused is not known to witness or witness
is not familiar with the accused.
The objects of conducting test identification parade are in two fold1.
1. First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they
suspect is really the one who was seen by witness in connection with the commission
of the crime.
2. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person
whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence.
So the officer conducting the test identification parade should ensure that the said object of
the parade is achieved. If he permits dilution of the modality to be followed in a parade, he
should see to it that such relaxation would not impair the purpose for which the parade is
held2.
The proof of identification parade is a very important method regarding adducing evidences
in person by the competent witnesses. It is used to test the veracity of the evidence given by
the witness as well as it is important in the context of measurement of the status of the
investigation process i.e. whether it is going in the right direction or not. The basic objective
of the identification parade is to test the trustworthiness and the strength of the witness.

Test identification parade is not sine qua non in every case if from circumstances the guilt is
1
State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh SC 1999
2
Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1970] 2 SCC 128 and Ramanathan V. State of Tamil
Nadu, [1978] 3 SCC 86.

Page 1 of 16
 established. Identification is not necessary in those cases where the witness knows the
accused by name. Evidence of identification in jail or elsewhere is relevant under section 9.

 OBJECTIVES
1. It is for the satisfaction of the prosecution and investigating authorities that
investigation was moving in the right direction.
2. It is to test the strength and trustworthiness of the evidence.
3. It acts as corroborative evidence.
4. It is to corroborate the substantive evidence in the process of cross- examination of
the witness.
5. It is to check the veracity of the witnesses who claim to see the accused i.e. to test the
memory of witnesses and they can be considered as an eye-witness.

 WHO CAN HOLD IDENTIFICATION PARADE

The parade should be held by a magistrate or any officer who is not a police officer because
the police should not take part in the identification parade. It can be held by the panch
(Ordinary person). Police can make arrangement for conducting identification parade but it
must be done in the presence of the Panch or a magistrate as it does not come in the purview
of sec. 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
At times even identification in the premises of police station is permitted if, the place of
identification is totally separate from the police office; the police machinery had no access to
the spot of identification; also there was no opportunity for the witness of seeing the suspects
before the parade; and There was nothing on record to that suspects were shown to witnesses
prior to the identification parade. In such circumstances, identification evidence is reliable.

 GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS OF HOLDING

IDENTIFICATION PARADE
1. There should be at least 10 under trials for each suspect. The proper way to put up
each suspect separately for identification mixed with at least nine or ten persons. Less
than that number considerably diminishes the value of identification3.
2. In a case where 36 dummies were used for identifying 6 accused, it was said as in
violation of guidelines. Hence evidence of holding parade was not admissible4

3
Anwar v. S, AIR 1961 All 50
4
Haresh Mahadeo Kamla v. State OfMaharastra, 2002 Cri LJ 1297 (Bom)

Page 2 of 16
 3. The suspect should be placed amongst persons who are as far as possible of the same
age, height, general appearance including standard of dress and grooming and
position in life.
4. The dummies should be selected properly and one accused should be kept for
identification by mixing appropriate member of dummies. The number of dummies
per accused should be in the ratio of 1:4 or 1:6.
5. Generally, not more than two accused should be put for the identification parade. The
dummies so placed along with the accused should be of similar appearance to the
accused5
The value of identification evidence depends on the factors which minimize the possibility of
chance as much as possible. An accused has no right to cover his face while the TI parade is
going on. Hence it is necessary that sufficient number of dummies should be mixed and each
accused should be put to identification parade separately.

 PRECAUTIONS IN HOLDING IDENTIFICATION PARADE

The basic precaution must be taken in this context is that of concealment of the distinctive
marks and conditions necessary for proper identification which would be acceptable by all
like presence of small pox marks on the body. So in such cases persons having same
character must be mixed with the accused
The purpose of the TI parade is futile when the accused and the police officials were present
at the police station at the time of identification parade. Prior to an ad hoc confrontation
identification, a note should be made to the witness’s description of the offender. Burden of
proof in such cases lies on the Prosecution that the TI parade was held and also strictly in
accordance with the rules.
In the case of Anthony v. State of Maharashtra6, it was held that the identification parade
should not be held in police station buildings but separate rooms should be reserved for
holding the identification parade in the separate building. The identification should be held in
such circumstances which should not be influenced by the presence of police of their
influence.
It is therefore, necessary that identification parades should as for as possible be conducted by
a magistrate or if no magistrate is available, by panchas (independent respectable persons)
and the Police should completely withdraw before the commencement of the identification. It
should however, by clearly understood that the observation made by the Supreme Court in
5
Thambinasir v. State, 2003 Cri LJ 429 (Bom)
6
Anthony v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (4) Mah LJ 894 (Bom).

Page 3 of 16
 the above mentioned case do not in any way prevent the police from holding an identification
parade.
Therefore in cases where in spite of all possible efforts, the services of a Magistrate or a
panch cannot be secured to hold an identification parade, the police officers should
themselves hold the identification parade and make use of the statements incorporated in the
identification memorandum in the same way as any other statement recorded by the police
during the investigation that is, within the limitations of section 162, Criminal Procedure
Code. All necessary precautions must be taken so that the witnesses should not see the
suspect before the identification parade. Sufficient number of dummies should be mixed and
each accused should be put to identification parade separately.

 DELAY IN HOLDING IDENTIFICATION PARADE

An identification parade should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused. Thus,
it becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses
prior to the identification parade. But in case there is some delay in holding the test
identification parade, it would not always be fatal to the prosecution. It is necessary as
memory of witness fades away with the passage of time and it is necessary that the suspects
should be identified at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence7
Where there is an inordinate delay in holding of the identification parade, the court must
adopt a cautious approach so as to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The effect on the evidentiary value of the identification parade would depend on the fact and
circumstances of the case. In a case where the court is satisfied that the witnesses had ample
time of commission of the offence and there is no chance of mistaken identity, delay in
holding the identification may not be held to be fatal38 The accused can take the plea of
benefit of doubt if the identification parade was not conducted properly.
The Supreme Court has held that, the delay could not be held to be inordinate in the fact and
circumstances of the case and in any event having regard to the opportunity which the
witnesses had to identify the appellant; the possibility of mistaken identity had to be ruled
out. Reliance could be placed on the identification by the witness. It was held in a case that
rape victims or any other victim are natural witnesses could not lose impression of the
accused. So information is acceptable. Identification of accused in the absence of proper light
cannot be doubted8.

7
Islam molla v. State of W.B.,1996 Cri LJ 724(Cal).
8
S. Mahto v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 2857.

Page 4 of 16
 IDENTIFICATION ON THE BASIS OF PHOTOGRAPH
Section 22 of TADA provides that –“Where a person has been declared a proclaimed
offender in a terrorist case, the evidence regarding his identification by witnesses on the basis
of his photograph shall have as the evidence of the test identification parade.”
But afterwards this section has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kartar
Singh v. State of Punjab9 1994 as it is being opposed to the fair and reasonable procedure
enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

 IDENTIFICATION THROUGH VIDEO-TAPE

It was held in the English that the evidence of identification of a suspect by a witness who
was not present at the crime scene but who knew the suspect and recognizes him on a video
was admissible at the trial. The basis of this is the recognition by the witness of the suspect in
a video tape. Apart from knowledge, no special skill, ability or expertise is needed but he
must have acquired special skill in relation to persons appearing on the video by the frequent
playing and analyzing it10. The only condition is the witness should not know the suspect
beforehand.

 LANDMARK CASES
Mohd. Jamil vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh11
In this case the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the
object of conducting the test identification parade is two folds.
1. First is to enable the witness to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect
is real one who was seen by them in connection with commission of crime.
2. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person
whom the witnesses have seen in connection with the said occurrence.
Thus, merely because the test identification parade was not arranged by the Investigating
Agency, would not discredit the clear, cogent and trustworthy evidence of the witness. It has
been held as follows: We have discussed hereinabove the evidence of Vijay Kumar
Shrivastava in its entirety and after appreciating the evidence we can say that his evidence is
clear, cogent and trustworthy. It is no use to imagine and magnify theoretical possibility with
regard to the state of mind of the witness and with regard to their power of memorizing the

9
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, Cri LJ 3139 SC
10
R v. Clare (Richard), (1995) 2 CrAppR 333.
11
2005 (MP HC) Cri. L.J. 1470

Page 5 of 16
 identity of the assailant. Power of perception and memorizing differs from man to man and
also depends upon situation. It would also depend upon capacity to recapitulate what has
been seen earlier.
State of Madhya Pradesh vrs. Sunder Lal, 1992 (SC) Cri. L.J. 2519
In this case, their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the girl who was 13
years old could not have forgotten the face of a man who committed ghastly crime upon her
On many instances, there had been issues raised on whether the Test Identification Parade
is a substantive piece of evidence or not. This question had been answered in negative by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vijay v State of Madhya Pradesh12. In this judgment
the Court observed that the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence,
yet it may be used for the purpose of corroboration, for believing that a person bought before
the court is the real person involved in the commission of the crime. However, it cannot be
considered in all cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of the accused can be
sustained. It is the rule of prudence which is required to be followed in the cases where the
accused is not known to the witness or the complainant.
The above mentioned analysis and judgments clear the picture and state that the purpose of
conducting such parades is for the investigative purposes and it must be conducted depending
upon the facts and circumstances of the case where the accused is generally unknown to the
witness.

 RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

54A13Identification of person arrested:
Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any
other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such
offence, the Court, having jurisdiction may, on the request of the officer in charge of a police
station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or
persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit.
Provided that if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled,
such process of identification shall take place under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate
who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies the person arrested
using methods that person is comfortable with.
Provided further that if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically
disabled, the identification process shall be video-graphed.
12
(2010) 8 SCC 191
13
Ins. in Cr.P.C. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 11 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006)

Page 6 of 16
291A14 Identification report of Magistrate:
1) Any document purporting to be a report of identification under the hand of an
Executive Magistrate in respect of a person or property may be used as evidence in
any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although such Magistrate is not
called as a witness:
Provided that where such report contains a statement of any suspect or witness to which the
provisions of section 21, section 32, section 33, section 155 or section 157, as the case may
be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), apply, such statement shall not be used
under this sub-section except in accordance with the provisions of those sections.
2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or of
the accused, summon and examine such Magistrate as to the subject-matter of the said
report.

The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not
previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that
witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them
from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check
upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of holding an identification parade,
during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first
impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be
cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The identification proceedings are in the nature of tests
and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is desirable that a test identification parade should
be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate
the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification
parade. This is a very common plea of the accused and, therefore, the prosecution has to be
cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such allegation. If, however,
circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the
prosecution15.
It is trite to say that
1. The substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in Court.

14
Ins. in Cr.P.C. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 24 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).
15
Matru v. State of U.P. (1971 (2) SCC 75)

Page 7 of 16
 2. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant
under Section 9 of the Evidence Act.
3. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made
in Court.
4. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the
first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character.
5. The purpose of prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the
trustworthiness of that evidence.
6. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for
corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of
the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification
proceedings.
7. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example,
the Court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely
rely, without such or other corroboration.
8. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no
provision in the Code which obliges the investigating agency to hold or
confers a right upon the accused to claim, a test identification parade.
9. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially
governed by Section 162 of the Code.
10. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the
evidence of identification in Court.
11. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the
Courts of fact.
12. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without
insisting on corroboration. (See Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration (AIR
1958 SC 350), Vaikuntam Chandrappa and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(AIR 1960 SC 1340), Budhsen and another v. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC
1321) and Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1972 SC
102).
Identifying the accused only in the Court without previous identification parade was found to
be a valueless exercise16.

16
V.C. Shukla v. State (AIR 1980 SC 1382)

Page 8 of 16
In Ram Nath Mahto v. State of Bihar17the Court upheld
The conviction of the appellant even when the witness while deposing in Court did not
identify the accused out of fear, though he had identified him in the test identification parade.
This Court noticed the observations of the trial Judge who had recorded his remarks about the
demeanour that the witness perhaps was afraid of the accused as he was trembling at the stare
of Ram Nath (accused). This Court also relied upon the evidence of the Magistrate, PW-7
who had conducted the test identification parade in which the witness had identified the
appellant. This Court found, that in the circumstances if the Courts below had convicted the
appellant, there was no reason to interfere.
In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar18 this Court held that
it is well settled that substantive evidence of the witness is his evidence in the Court but when
the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then identification of
the accused by the witness soon after his arrest is of great importance because it furnishes an
assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing
corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in Court at the trial. From this
point of view it is a matter of great importance, both for the investigating agency and for the
accused and a fortiori for the proper administration of justice that such identification is held
without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused. It is in adopting this
course alone that justice and fair play can be assured both to the accused as well as to the
prosecution. Thereafter this Court observed:- "But the position may be different when the
accused or a culprit who stands trial had been seen not once but for quite a number of times at
different point of time and places which fact may do away with the necessity of a TI parade."

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh and others19 this Court observed that the evidence
of identification becomes stronger if the witness has an opportunity of seeing the accused not
for a few minutes but for some length of time, in broad daylight, when he would be able to
note the features of the accused more carefully than on seeing the accused in a dark night for
a few minutes.
In Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat 20 after considering the
earlier decisions this Court observed:
"It becomes at once clear that the aforesaid observations were made in the light of the
17
(1996) 8 SCC 630)
18
(1995 Supp (1) SCC 80),
19
(1979 (1) SCC 31),
20
(2000 (1) SCC 358)

Page 9 of 16
 peculiar facts and circumstances wherein the police is said to have given the names of the
accused to the witnesses. Under these circumstances, identification of such a named accused
only in the Court when the accused was not known earlier to the witness had to be treated as
valueless.

 PROBATIVE VALUE OF IDENTIFICATION PARADE:

1. Ordinarily identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should
not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak
character, unless it is corroborated by his previous Identification in the test
identification parade or any other evidence21.
2. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory,
capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of
the evidence of identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as
reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in
court22.
3. If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative value of
such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal so much so that it becomes, as a rule
of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence.
4. where the witness had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the
witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused which
lends assurance to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for
the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no test
Identification parade was held.
5. in the absence of a test identification parade, the evidence of an eyewitness
identifying the accused would become inadmissible or totally useless; whether the
evidence deserves any credence or not would always depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case." The Court further observed ".the fact remains that these
eyewitnesses were seriously injured and they could have easily seen the faces of the
persons assaulting them and their appearance and identity would well remain
imprinted in their minds especially when they were assaulted in broad day light." In
these circumstances, conviction of the accused was upheld on the basis of solitary
evidence of identification by a witness for the first time in court23.

21
Dana Yadav @ Dahu&Ors vs State Of Bihar 2002 SCR 363
22
Dana Yadav @ Dahu&Ors vs State Of Bihar 2002 SCR 363
23
Dana Yadav @ Dahu&Ors vs State Of Bihar 2002 SCR 363

Page 10 of 16
 EXAMINATION OF MAGISTRATE ON MINUTES PREPARED BY
HIM:
The minutes of the test identification parade conducted by the Magistratewho himself was
examined as a witness (PW-2).
It contains the details of the steps adopted by him.
Seven other persons along with the suspect or suspects were kept ready in the room and the
witnesses were kept in another room from where they could not see the witness.
Thereupon the suspect was brought from the lock up with the help of two respectable persons
and all precautions were taken that the witnesses could not see the suspect during such transit.
Then the suspect was permitted to stand anywhere among the 7 persons.
It was thereafter that the witnesses were brought with the help of the same respectable
persons and the witnesses were then asked to identify the person whom they saw on the
crucial day24.

If potholes were to be ferreted (bring to light, dig out, discover) out from the proceedings of
the magistrates holding such parades possibly no test identification parade can escape from
one or two lapses. If a scrutiny is made from that angle alone and the result of the parade is
treated as vitiated every test identification parade would become unusable. We remind
ourselves that identification parades are not primarily meant for the court. They are meant for
investigation purposes25.
About the evidentiary value of the identification parade it is well settled that though it can be
a sole basis of conviction but it is submitted that it must act as a corroborative evidence to
avoid discrepancies. Until and unless it is evident that the eye witness’s memory in the
identification of the right accused cannot be questioned, it will be admitted.
Budhsen vs State Of U.P on 6 May, 1970(1970 AIR 1321)

 CONCLUDING REMARKS:

1. Facts which establish the identity of an accused person are relevant under S. 9 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
2. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in court.
3. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time
is from its very nature inherently of a weak character.
24
State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh SC 1999
25
State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh SC 1999

Page 11 of 16
4. The evidence in order to carry conviction should ordinarily clarify as to how and
under what circumstances he came to pick out the particular accused person and the
details of the part which the accused played in the crime in question with reasonable
particularity.
5. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, seems to be to test and strengthen
the trustworthiness of that evidence.
6. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration
of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are
strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding.
7. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the court
is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without
such or other corroboration.
8. The identification parades belong to the investigation stage.
9. They are generally held during the course of investigation with the primary object of
enabling the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence, who were not
previously known to them.
10. This serves to satisfy the investigating officers of the bona fides of the prosecution
witnesses and also to furnish evidence to corroborate their testimony in court.
11. Identification proceedings in their legal effect amount simply to this: that certain
persons are brought to jail or some other place and make statements either express or
implied that certain individuals whom they point out are persons whom they recognise
as having been concerned in the crime.
12. They do not constitute substantive evidence.
13. These parades are essentially governed by s. 162, Cr. P.C. It is for this reason that the
identification parades in this case seem to have been held under the supervision of a
Magistrate.
14. Keeping in view the purpose of identification parades the Magistrates holding them
are expected to take all possible precautions to eliminate any suspicion of unfairness
and to reduce the chance of testimonial error.
15. They must, therefore, take intelligent interest in the proceedings, bearing in mind two
considerations: (i) that the life and liberty of an accused may depend on their
vigilance and caution and (ii) that justice should be done an the identification Those
proceedings should not make it impossible for the identifiers who, after all, have, as a
rule, only fleeting glimpses of the person they are supposed to identify.
Page 12 of 16
 16. Generally speaking, the Magistrate must make a note of every objection raised by an
accused at the time of identification and the steps taken by them to ensure fairness to
the accused, so that the court which is to judge the value of the identification evidence
may take them into consideration in the appreciation of that evidence.
17. The power to identify, it may be kept in view, varies according to the power of
observation and memory of the person identifying and each case depends on its own
facts, but there are two factors which seems to be of basic importance in the
evaluation of identification.
18. The persons required to identify an accused should have bad no, opportunity of seeing
him after the commission of the crime and before identification and secondly that no
mistakes are made by them or the mistakes made are negligible.
19. The identification to be of value should also be held without much delay.
20. The number of persons mixed up with the accused should be reasonably large and
their bearing and general appearance not glaringly dissimilar.
21. The evidence as to identification deserves, therefore, to be subjected to a close and
careful scrutiny by the Court.

Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022

Recently, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 has come into force after being
passed by the Parliament in April 2022.
It replaces the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, a colonial era law, and authorises police
officers to take measurements of people convicted, arrested or facing trial in criminal cases.
That is the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022?
It provides Legal sanction to the police to take physical and biological samples of convicts as
well as those accused of crimes.
The police as per section 53 or section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973,
can collect Data.
Data that can be collected: Finger-impressions, Palm-Print impressions, Footprint
impressions, Photographs, Iris and Retina scan, Physical, Biological samples and their
analysis, Behavioural Attributes including signatures, Handwriting or any other examination
CrPC is the primary legislation regarding the procedural aspects of criminal law.
Any person convicted, arrested or detained under any preventive detention law will be
required to provide "measurements" to a police officer or a prison official.

Page 13 of 16
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) will store, preserve, share with any law
enforcement agency and destroy the record of measurements at national level. The records
can be stored up to a period of 75 years.
It aims to ensure the unique identification of those involved with crime and to help
investigating agencies solve cases.
What is the Need to Replace the Previous Act?
In 1980, the 87th Report of the Law Commission of India undertook a review of this
legislation and recommended several amendments.
This was done in the backdrop of the State of UP vs Ram Babu Misra case, where the
Supreme Court had highlighted the need for amending this law.
The first set of recommendations laid out the need to amend the Act to expand the scope of
measurements to include “palm impressions”, “specimen of signature or writing” and
“specimen of voice”.
The second set of recommendations raised the need to allow measurements to be taken for
proceedings other than those under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Law Commission Report also notes that the need for an amendment is reflected by the
numerous amendments made to the Act by several States.
It was felt that with advancements in forensics, there is a need to recognise more kinds of
“measurements” that can be used by law enforcement agencies for investigation.
What is the Significance of the Act?
Modern Techniques:
The Act makes provisions for the use of modern techniques to capture and record appropriate
body measurements.
The existing law allowed taking only fingerprint and footprint impressions of a limited
category of convicted persons.
Help Investing Agencies:
It seeks to expand the ‘ambit of persons’ whose measurements can be taken as this will help
the investigating agencies to gather sufficient legally admissible evidence and establish the
crime of the accused person.
Making Investigation More Efficient:
It provides legal sanction for taking appropriate body measurements of persons who are
required to give such measurements and will make the investigation of crime more efficient
and expeditious and will also help in increasing the conviction rate.
What are the Issues with Law?
Violation of Privacy:

Page 14 of 16
Seemingly technical, the legislative proposal undermines the right to privacy of not only
persons convicted of crime but also every ordinary Indian citizen.
It has provisions to collect samples even from protestors engaged in political protests.
Ambiguous Provisions:
Replacing the 1920 Identification of Prisoners Act, the proposed law considerably expands its
scope and reach.
The phrase ‘biological samples’ is not described further, hence, it could involve bodily
invasions such as drawing of blood and hair, collection of DNA samples.
These are acts that currently require the written sanction of a magistrate.
Violation of Article 20:
Enables coercive drawing of samples and possibly involves a violation of Article 20(3),
which protects the right against self-incrimination.
The Bill implied use of force in collection of biological information, could also lead to narco
analysis and brain mapping.
Handling Data:
The records will be preserved for 75 years, the other concerns include the means by which
the data collected will be preserved, shared, disseminated, and destroyed.
Collection can also result in mass surveillance, with the database under this law being
combined with other databases such as those of the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network
and Systems (CCTNS).
Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) is a plan scheme conceived in
the light of experience of a non-plan scheme namely - Common Integrated Police Application
(CIPA).
Unawareness among Detainees:
Although it provides that an arrested person (not accused of an offence against a woman or a
child) may refuse the taking of samples, not all detainees may know that they can indeed
decline to let biological samples be taken.
And it may be easy for the police to ignore such refusal and later claim that they did get the
detainee’s consent.
Way Forward
The concern over privacy and the safety of the data is undoubtedly significant. Such practices
that involve the collection, storage and destruction of vital details of a personal nature ought
to be introduced only after a strong data protection law, with stringent punishment for
breaches, is in place.
Depriving law enforcement agencies of the use of the latest technologies would be a grave
disservice to victims of crimes, and the nation at large. Besides better scrutiny and data
protection law, measures need to be taken for better implementation of the law as well.

Page 15 of 16
The need is to have more experts to collect measurements from the scene of crime, more
forensic labs, and equipment to analyse them to identify possible accused involved in a
criminal case.
Identification of things

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Nazir Ahmad Khan vs State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 January, 2001

Page 16 of 16