April 4, 2022
Saugata Roy’s speech on The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022
Sir, I have very little time to speak. Hence, I shall not make a speech. Sir, I rise to speak on the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022. I have several questions and clarifications to seek from the Home Minister. He mentioned about the Law Commission, 1980. Why is it not mentioned anywhere in the Bill or in the Statement of Objects and Reasons? I do not know the reason. Why did it take 42 years for you to act on a Law Commission Report? There is no reply for it. Secondly, he has spoken about the measurements. In Clause 2(b), he has spoken about biological samples. My question is, do the biological samples include micro biological samples. When you take a part of the skin, it is a biological sample. When you do a DNA test and find out what the deoxyribonucleic acid is, then you do a micro biological test. What do you want to do? Do you want to take a piece of skin or actually do a DNA mapping? Can you afford to do DNA mapping for a person? Thirdly, you have spoken about behavioural attitude including other things, and any other examination. Does it include macro mapping? Does it include brain scan? That is not clear. That is why, I say that this Bill is badly drafted. Neither is biological sample clear nor is the behavioural attitude clear. This is possibly the first Bill which deviates from Criminal Procedure Code. Under Criminal Procedure Code, an officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector can lodge an FIR. He is trying to give power to head constables to do measurements. In prison, is it wise to give this power to nongazetted employees which has never been done in all these years of Independence? Kindly clear this point. There are only two redeeming features in the Bill. Persons who have been arrested for an offence committed and with a punishment for a period of less than seven years, may not be obliged to allow taking their biological sample. This is a slight redeeming feature. The other one is, if somebody is released, a person who has not been previously convicted, had his measurements taken, and is released without trial, then all the records willbe eliminated or rubbed of. Basically, why had we opposed the introduction of the Bill? It is because it is draconian. This impinges Articles14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. It takes away the right of the individual including those who are charged with an offence. I think this Bill was drafted in a hurry. Without any provocation, there is no reason why Shri Amit Shah suddenly came up with this Bill. He is the Home Minister. He should show some politeness and refer this Bill to the Standing Committee so that all these definitions can be clarified and the misuse of this Bill by the Head Constables, Head Warders and the small petty officials can be avoided. With this, Sir, I again oppose this Bill. This Bill is a draconian Bill and it is against the democratic rights of the people.
