DNA bill is not clear about consent and privacy
DNA Regulation (Usage and Application) Act 2019 (DNA Bill) has recently created a dispute about the issue of privacy, but the bill has been in the pipeline for the last three years.
The original draft law was submitted to the commission in September 2016 by the
Biotechnology Department of the Ministry of Science and Technology.
After reviewing the bill, the Law Commission proposed some changes in its July 2017 report. The present bill is practical, as the Commission has proposed in its 2017 report.
Recommendations of the Law Committee
The original bill was entitled: Use and Regulation of DNA-based Technology in Civil and Criminal Proceedings, Recognition of Missing Persons and Human Reservations Bill, 2016 The contents of the bill were publicly criticized on the privacy concerns.
However, the Commission’s report did not address these concerns adequately on this issue.
The recommendations of the commission were primarily for the formation of DNA (profiling panel as a legal body for the maintenance of DNA panel and DNA database.
The purpose of obtaining the bill is that the DNA database, maintaining unknown dead bodies, Can be identified with criminals with natural accuracy and relative accuracy, where there is a 0.01% error rate in terms of DNA technology, but just a Kanu Minister to introduce provisions to establish bodies, current gaps and defects are not adequately addressed.
The basic problem approval in the current DNA bill is approval. Justice K.S. According to Puttaswamy (Retired) and triple test given in Meera. Vs Union of India and ORS Regarding privacy:
The second side is a consensus on the privacy decision. Judge DY Chandchood emphasized the importance of “informed consent”. According to the current law, consent was forced to be forcibly and forcibly.
In the case of Potoswamy, a new dimension was given to the consensus, that is, it should be communicated, which means that if all the facts are not known to the person, then the agreed consent will become contaminated.
Another point where current Draft Law fails in Puttaswamy, in such cases of citizen cases where DNA identification may be necessary, such as paternity suit. In this case, the retention of the DNA profile of the respective parties is not a general purpose.
According to Article 21 and 22 of the Draft Law, the consent of DNA samples should be obtained in all cases except in specific crimes.
The interpretation states that specific crimes are those where punishment is seven years or more or death. If the consent can not be obtained – in a criminal case – the sample can be collected on the order of the judge.
The problem here is that it is well known that the police specializes in influencing the persons in their custody – either by force or by prosecution – and thus, although Article 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides this investigation That the identity of the court is unacceptable, the police can encourage self-harassment by testing DNA.
An important privacy problem arises around the proposed DNA data banks. It has been envisaged that they will be established and maintained at regional and central levels.
These data banks will maintain six indicators: Crime Scene Index, Criminal Index, Suspect Index, guarantor index, missing person index and unknown dead person index.
Despite the DNA data recorded in the infringer index, all other information can be removed from the repository. In the case of a suspect, on the basis of the police report presented or on the order of the court. In the case of trial by court order.
DNA profiles can be removed for those people who have been registered in DNA related warehouses and have not committed any offense, when applying to the DNA bank manager’s National Bank. However, the DNA profile of guilty or criminal is not included in the proposed section.
This raises the question about the stage on which the person’s DNA sample will be collected and approval is required or not.
Another issue concerns the widespread philosophy of the criminal justice system, in which the guilty person should not be fined after conviction.
One of the deficiencies in the bill mentioned in PRS India is that there are specific provisions that restrict the retention of data on medical history and physical features in DNA data banks, two other countries with laws in South Africa and Ireland.
The present bill does not have any special provision for itself.
The first reason for which the bill was placed was the identification of dead bodies.
However, in its current draft, the draft bill is beyond the mere recognition of unclaimed bodies. On one hand, the positive side is that there is a proposal to regulate Bill DNA testing.