Government rejects ‘omnibus’ claims of enrolment of NEET-UG protestors’ biometrics on criminal database

The union government has opposed Rajya Sabha MP A.A. Rahim’s “sweeping” assertion that the biometric data of “thousands of protestors” has been enrolled on national criminal databases.

An affidavit filed by the Home Ministry through the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) said blanket allegations of indefinite retention, storage and sharing of biometric information were not based on foundational facts.

The NCRB said allegations of violation of fundamental rights to privacy, free speech and expression must be based on factual foundation of the alleged infringement.

The government said the MP has not identified a single biometric record of any identified person which was unlawfully collected at Jantar Mantar, transmitted to NCRB, which had in turn processed or retained the information in breach of any law.

An “omnibus” assertion that biometrics of the NEET-UG protestors were captured and stored cannot substitute for proof that it was actually done, the Home Ministry said.

Mr. Rahim, represented by advocate Subhash Chandran, had challenged the alleged use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) and biometric surveillance by law enforcement agencies during public demonstrations, particularly at Jantar Mantar. He had alleged that the biometrics of the protestors were illegally retained and passed on to third parties.

The petitioner had sought comprehensive directives to stop biometric scanning of peaceful protesters and requested the deletion and erasure of collected biometric details from the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS), the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS), other allied security databases.

“The petitioner’s prayer seeking deletion and erasure of biometric information from NAFIS, CCTNS and every allied database is in its present form wholly omnibus. Such a prayer would necessarily require the identification of the particular category of record, the database in which the record is maintained, the authority responsible for creating and transmitting the record, the criminal proceedings, if any, to which the record relates and the statutory regime governing its retention or destruction,” the NCRB affidavit pointed out.

A nodal officer would also consider the plea for destruction of the record and verify if the biometrics were linked to any other active cases.

The NCRB said the allegations that it had an interface to share biometric information with private entities were at best vague.

The MP has not placed any record in court to show a specific agreement, authorisation, or data-processing arrangement to back a claim that NCRB had granted access to, custody of, or control over biometric records alleged to have been collected from persons attending the NEET-UG protests.

“The petition discloses no order or act of the NCRB whereby any person at Jantar Mantar was subjected to facial recognition, biometric collection, drone surveillance or fingerprint matching. The mere existence of a statutory framework governing records of measurements [biometrics] and their processing or matching does not make NCRB the author, controller or supervisor of every alleged field-level collection undertaken by a police or investigating agency,” the affidavit said.