Facial Recognition Evidence in India: Balancing AI Forensics with Constitutional Safeguards

 

Introduction

With Artificial Intelligence (AI) rapidly transforming law enforcement, Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) has become one of the most prominent tools for identifying suspects, tracking movements, and verifying identities. In India, several state police forces and central agencies have already begun integrating FRT into their operations. Although the technology promises faster and more efficient investigations, its use as courtroom evidence raises important legal and ethical concerns — particularly regarding accuracy, due process, bias, and privacy.

This article examines the evidentiary value of facial recognition in Indian courts, highlighting the legal framework, issues of reliability, and the urgent need for procedural safeguards.

 

Understanding Facial Recognition Evidence

Facial Recognition Technology employs AI-based algorithms to compare images or video frames and identify individuals by matching facial features against a database. In investigative contexts, FRT can help police narrow down suspects using CCTV footage, social media, or public surveillance systems.

In India, the proposed National Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) aims to integrate multiple police and crime databases. However, instances such as the Delhi Police’s use of FRT during protests have sparked debates over transparency, proportionality, and accountability.

 

Evidentiary Application

FRT can serve two distinct purposes:

Investigative Tool: Used for identifying potential suspects or persons of interest — a step that aids police investigation but does not amount to proof.

 

Courtroom Evidence: When introduced as proof of identity or presence, FRT must satisfy the admissibility standards under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

 

Legal Framework in India

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

According to Section 3, evidence includes all documents and electronic records. Section 65B provides that electronic records are admissible if accompanied by a valid certificate establishing authenticity.

Facial recognition data, therefore, qualifies as an electronic record. Yet, for it to hold evidentiary value, courts must ensure:

• The technology used is scientifically reliable.
• The match carries statistical and technical significance.
• The evidence is free from manipulation or bias.

 

Constitutional Safeguards and Due Process

Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to privacy, as affirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Any state intrusion through FRT must satisfy three principles:

• Legality: There must be a valid legal basis.
• Necessity: The action should pursue a legitimate objective.
• Proportionality: The measure must be the least intrusive option.

Given India’s absence of a robust data protection law, unchecked use of FRT risks violating these constitutional safeguards.

 

Ethical and Reliability Concerns

 

Accuracy and Bias

Facial recognition algorithms often falter in diverse conditions, such as poor lighting or large crowds. Research indicates:

• Higher false-positive rates for women and individuals with darker skin tones.
• Lower accuracy when the image quality is degraded.
  Such inaccuracies can lead to wrongful arrests and undermine the credibility of the justice system. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has found that even advanced systems exhibit significant demographic bias.

 

The “Black Box” Challenge

Many FRT systems operate without transparency, making it difficult for defense teams to question or verify the algorithm’s functioning. In criminal trials, where guilt must be proven “beyond reasonable doubt,” reliance on opaque AI systems undermines the accused’s right to challenge the evidence and violates procedural fairness.

 

Global Perspectives

United States

In People v. Lopez (2020), a New York court ruled that facial recognition results alone could not justify arrest. U.S. courts increasingly demand algorithmic transparency and expert testimony before accepting such evidence.

European Union

Under the GDPR and the forthcoming AI Act, biometric data processing faces stringent restrictions. Most EU nations prohibit or heavily regulate real-time facial recognition in public spaces to safeguard privacy rights.

Lessons for India

India can adopt global best practices by implementing:

• Clear consent and notification requirements.
• Accuracy and reliability benchmarks.
• Independent audits of FRT systems.
• Exclusionary rules for biased or flawed evidence.

 

Ensuring Admissibility: Key Safeguards for India

 

Technical Measures

• Use algorithms certified by credible institutions such as NIST.
• Set minimum confidence score thresholds for matches.
• Grant defense access to metadata, match logs, and system details.

Procedural Protocols

• FRT results should never serve as the sole basis for conviction.
• Expert testimony must accompany all FRT-based evidence.
• Maintain a clear chain of custody for digital evidence.
• Permit cross-examination of both the system’s operator and technical process.

Legal Reforms

• Enact a Facial Recognition Regulation Law specifying permissible uses, data retention limits, and audit mechanisms.
• Amend the Indian Evidence Act to establish standards for AI-generated or algorithmic evidence.
• Mandate judicial approval for deploying FRT in sensitive contexts such as political protests or public demonstrations.

 

The Road Ahead for AI Forensics

As India embraces AI in its criminal justice system, technologies like gait analysis, voice recognition, and emotion detection are also gaining traction. However, deploying these without strong legal oversight risks eroding civil liberties.

The goal must be to balance technological advancement with individual rights. While FRT can accelerate investigations and improve accuracy, it must not come at the cost of fairness or accountability.

 

Conclusion

Facial Recognition Technology has immense potential to enhance law enforcement, but its evidentiary use in courts requires caution and regulation. Courts and policymakers must ensure that FRT evidence meets high standards of accuracy, transparency, and constitutional compliance.

 

Unlock the Potential of Legal Expertise with LegalMantra.net - Your Trusted Legal Consultancy Partner”

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this material in spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition In no event the author shall be liable for any direct indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from or arising out of or in connection with the use of this information Many sources have been considered including Newspapers, Journals, Bare Acts, Case Materials , Charted Secretary, Research Papers etc

Prerna Yadav

LegalMantra.net Team

 

Print