12 Feb 2024 7:35 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 12) refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) challenging the constitutionality of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, and the attendant rules, but granted the organisation liberty to approach the jurisdictional high court.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta heard today the writ petition filed jointly by IFF and the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPAP), contesting the powers granted to law enforcement agencies under the CPI Act, allowing for the collection of various biometric measurements from individuals entering the criminal justice system. The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 replaced the century-old Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 whose scope was limited to capturing finger and footprint impressions and photographs of certain categories of people under the instructions of a magistrate. The petitioners alleged an excessive delegation of authority without adequate safeguards for privacy and due process.
However, during the hearing, Justice Khanna asked "Why don't you go to the high court? We should not become the court of the first instance. It gives us the opportunity to have the view of the high court, when you approach it first".
Advocate Abhinav Sekhri, representing the Internet Freedom Foundation, highlighted specific concerns regarding the recent changes in rule-making provisions and the complex interplay between various legislative acts, in an attempt to persuade the apex court to invoke its Article 32 jurisdiction. He argued -
Despite Sekhri's efforts, Justice Khanna reiterated the court's stance, urging the petitioner to pursue their case before the high court. The counsel's attempt to cite the significance of the issues raised in order to justify the top court's intervention was also met with a firm response from the bench.
"All constitutional courts are competent to deal with important issues. Please go there," Justice Khanna said firmly, signalling an end to the exchange.
Then, the judge pronounced, "We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. We leave it open for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional high court by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. We clarify that we have not made any comments or observations on the merits."
Case Details
Internet Freedom Foundation & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. | Diary No. 53491 of 2023