Introduction
Technology has become an indispensable tool for law enforcement agencies across the world to investigate crimes and gather evidence against perpetrators. The advent of sophisticated forensic techniques, surveillance systems and digital devices has transformed the criminal justice landscape. In India too, police and investigative agencies have increasingly adopted technology to strengthen crime detection and conviction rates. However, the use of such technology also raises pertinent ethical, legal and rights-related concerns that must be addressed. This blog examines how technology is impacting criminal investigations and evidence collection in India, highlighting both the benefits and challenges.
Forensic Science and DNA Analysis
The establishment of forensic science laboratories across India has expanded the scope of scientific evidence that can be leveraged to solve criminal cases. As of 2022, India has a network of 46 central and state-level forensic science labs [1]. These labs allow investigators to uncover physical and biological evidence through ballistics, fingerprinting, DNA analysis and other techniques.
DNA profiling in particular has emerged as a gamechanger for establishing identity and connecting suspects to crime scenes. The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill was passed in 2019 to build capacity for DNA analysis and create a national DNA database [2]. As per National Crime Records Bureau data, till 2021 DNA tests helped convict the accused in over 45,000 cases [3]. DNA evidence has even led to the exoneration of wrongfully convicted individuals. In many high-profile cases such as the Nirbhaya and Priyadarshini Mattoo rapes, DNA samples were crucial to identify and punish the perpetrators [4].
However, India’s DNA analysis capability is still limited with an average of 80,000 samples being tested per year as compared to over 3 million in the US [5]. Lack of standardized protocols, inadequate storage facilities and delays due to overburdened labs pose challenges [6]. Safeguards are needed to prevent contamination, ensure sample integrity and protect the privacy of DNA data.
Digital Devices and Electronic Evidence
The proliferation of smartphones, laptops, CCTV cameras and other digital devices has created new sources of potential electronic evidence for investigators [7]. Police now routinely extract data from suspects’ computers and phones using forensic tools to find incriminating details about communications, transactions, photos and internet activity [8].
CCTV footage provides visual evidence placing suspects at crime locations. India’s CCTV surveillance network is expanding rapidly, with major cities like Delhi having lakhs of cameras installed [9]. However, poor maintenance and lack of trained staff to analyze footage poses issues [10].
Guidelines like the 2018 Karnataka Police manual provide procedures for collection and preservation of digital evidence [11]. But lack of standardization and gaps in training undermine these efforts [12]. There are also concerns around privacy and consent for accessing personal data stored on devices [13].
Surveillance Technology
Advanced surveillance technology like drones, hidden cameras and phone tracking aids covert monitoring of suspects and evidence collection [14]. Police have used drone footage to reconstruct crime scenes and locate missing persons [15]. However, unregulated use of such technology violates privacy and civil liberties [16].
Facial recognition systems are also being deployed for identifying criminals, but their accuracy is questionable [17]. These systems suffer from racial and gender bias, with higher error rates for women and darker skinned individuals [18]. Lack of consent and oversight in using facial recognition for mass surveillance is ethically problematic.
Challenges and Ethical Concerns
While technology is making investigations more efficient, India’s outdated police infrastructure poses hurdles. Many police stations lack basic digital forensic tools and connectivity [19]. This leads to overreliance on private vendors, compromising evidence integrity [20].
Protocols for electronic evidence collection are inadequate [21]. Lack of training on digital forensics also contributes to mishandling of technology-based evidence [22]. There is potential for evidence tampering and fabrication in absence of security safeguards [23].
Technological evidence can reinforce biases during collection and interpretation stages [24]. For instance, facial recognition errors may cause over-policing of marginalized communities [25]. Lack of transparency in forensic analysis and surveillance protocols also undermines accountability [26].
Recommendations for Responsible Use
To address these concerns, the following steps are recommended:
- Increase funding and training for building digital forensic capabilities across police stations [27].
- Develop robust protocols for collection and analysis of electronic evidence [28].
- Enact privacy and data protection laws to prevent abuse of surveillance technology [29].
- Improve transparency in investigative processes through audits and civilian oversight [30].
- Incorporate ethics and objectivity modules in forensic science education programs [31].
- Conduct impact assessments to mitigate biases in technological evidence [32].
Conclusion
In summary, technology has opened new vistas for evidence collection, but also poses risks if used irresponsibly. India must build capacity for ethical and accountable use of technology in investigations. Oversight mechanisms, respect for privacy and mitigation of bias should be prioritized along with harnessing the benefits of technology for public safety and justice delivery. The criminal justice system must evolve technologically, while upholding constitutional safeguards and human rights.
References
[1] NCRB, “Crime in India 2020”, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2020.
[2] DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill 2019.
[3] A. Singh, “45,000 Cases Solved Using DNA Technology Till 2021”, Times of India, 2022.
[4] S. Lalwani, “32 Years After Her Murder, Priyadarshini Mattoo Case Retrial to Commence on Oct 1”, ThePrint, 2022.
[5] A. Katakam, “DNA Profiling in India”, Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 44, No. 16, 2009.
[6] V. Rao, “DNA Technology in India”, Forbes India, 2020.
[7] P. Chandra, “Electronic Evidence and Its Challenges”, Journal of Forensic Research Vol. 6, No. 1, 2015.
[8] B. N. Patel, “Digital Forensic Practices and Challenges in India”, Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, 2015.
[9] Delhi Police, “CCTNS Project”, https://www.delhipolice.nic.in.
[10] S. Behuria, “The Efficacy of CCTV Surveillance Systems”, ORF Issue Brief No. 122, 2015.
[11]Karnataka Police Manual 2018.
[12] N. K. Rao and D. Vora, “Digital forensic investigation issues in India”, Digital Investigation, Vol. 19, 2016.
[13] R. Sanghvi, “Privacy and data protection in digital forensics in India”, Digital Investigation, Vol. 14, 2015.
[14] M. N. Sibley, “The Impact of Technology on Policing”, Criminology & Public Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2021.
[15] P. Behera, “Drone Technology for Law Enforcement in India”, ORF Issue Brief No. 494, 2021.
[16] Internet Freedom Foundation, “Facial Recognition in India Part II: An Overview of Law Enforcement”, 2020.
[17] R. Rathee and H. Raj, “Facial Recognition Systems in India and Issues Relating to Privacy, Surveillance and Oversight”, The Dialogue, 2021.
[18] J. Snow, “Amazon’s Face Recognition Falsely Matched 28 Members of Congress With Mugshots”, ACLU, 2018.
[19] B. N. Patel, “Digital Forensic Practices and Challenges in India”, Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, 2015.
[20] M. C. Tome and V. R. Parsi, “Digital and multimedia evidence: Search, seizure and examination”, Forensic Science International, Vol. 264, 2016.
[21] N. K. Rao and D. Vora, “Digital forensic investigation issues in India”, Digital Investigation, Vol. 19, 2016.
[22] V. Rao, “DNA Technology in India”, Forbes India, 2020.
[23] S. Hinduja and J.W. Blackburn, “Digital forensics and the law of evidence in India”, Digital Investigation, Vol. 14, 2015.
[24] R. Rathee and H. Raj, “Facial Recognition Systems in India and Issues Relating to Privacy, Surveillance and Oversight”, The Dialogue, 2021.
[25] J. Snow, “Amazon’s Face Recognition Falsely Matched 28 Members of Congress With Mugshots”, ACLU, 2018.
[26] Internet Freedom Foundation, “Facial Recognition in India Part II: An Overview of Law Enforcement”, 2020.
[27] NCRB, “National Cybercrime Training Centre”, https://ncrb.gov.in.
[28] B. N. Patel, “Digital Forensic Practices and Challenges in India”, Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, 2015.
[29] Software Freedom Law Centre, “India’s Surveillance State”, 2022.
[30] J.J. Stephen, “Technology and Policing: The Case of Body Worn Cameras in India”, ORF Issue Brief No. 396, 2019.
[31] N. Vyas, “Ethics in Digital Forensics”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, Vol. 8, No. 5, 2017.
[32] R. Binns, “On the apparent conflict between individual and group fairness”, Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2020.