DNA Bill: Need For More Discussion
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-02-07 15:09:16
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
There is no denying that forensic evidence must be given due primacy in criminal cases. That includes DNA profiling. India is on the verge of passing the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Bill, 2019 to make it law. Before that, the parliamentary committee tasked with vetting the bill has suggested that its provisions be thoroughly debated in the House to ensure that the demands of using cutting-edge technology in helping solve crimes does not impinge upon the constitutional rights of citizens. In short, the committee wants the government to ensure that the provisions of the bill are not misused by discussing them threadbare and incorporating changes as suggested by experts and MPs.
That is as it should be. For, what the bill proposes is to create a national database of DNA profiles obtained from crime scenes. But this is absurd and dangerous for the simple reason that a crime scene might throw up DNA samples of numerous persons who would not be connected to the crime in any way. To incorporate their data in the national database would be to implicate them, however tangentially, and scar them for life. Even storing a criminal's DNA in a depository raises concerns about breach of privacy. Another concern with DNA profiling is about the procedure. Although very accurate, it is not 100% foolproof. A partial DNA profile (one that is not complete), for example, may match with multiple people and should not serve as conclusive evidence. Then there can be lab errors or mix ups that can result in criminals getting acquitted or innocents persons getting wrongfully convicted.
Further, use of DNA would need all those connected with the system of criminal justice to be thoroughly conversant with the technology. This means that the government will have to educate and enlighten the investigating agencies, the sea of lawyers and magistrates and judges. It will also have to ensure state-of-the-art labs in large numbers that provide accurate results as the Supreme Court had in the past found these tests to be unreliable. Although it is undeniable that DNA provides a scientifically accurate way to nail a criminal, the way the bill is drafted it would put all DNA samples collected from the crime scene in a depository, thereby creating an adverse profile for those that are innocent. It would be wrong to cast aspersions on numerous persons to nab a criminal and it would also impinge on their constitutional rights.
Hence, the government should go for a clause-by-clause discussion on the bill to weed out provisions that can either be misused to impinge upon constitutional rights of citizens. A balance has to be struck between the need to introduce DNA profiling as evidence to nab a criminal and the need to ensure fairness and constitutional propriety.
