Evaluate whether the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 satisfies the test of proportionality, with reference to the scope of 'measurements' and the 75-year retention period.

In K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), the Supreme Court held that any restriction on privacy needs a public purpose, a rational nexus with that purpose, and must be the least intrusive way to achieve it [2]. The 2022 Act, which replaced the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, meets the first two tests. It falls short on necessity and balancing.

Where the Act passes: legitimate aim and rational nexus

• Modern evidence: the old law covered only fingerprints and footprints. The new one adds iris and retina scans and biological samples, which helps investigation and conviction [1].
• Central repository: NCRB can store and share records across States, so offenders can be matched across jurisdictions [1].
• Built-in safeguards: records are destroyed on acquittal after all appeals or release without trial [1]. The Rules also exclude persons detained under Sections 144/145/151 CrPC unless they are charged with another offence [3].

Scope of 'measurements': fails necessity

• Vague categories: terms like "behavioural attributes" and "biological samples" are broad. This allows collection well beyond what an investigation needs [1].
• No link to how serious the offence is: data can be taken from anyone arrested for any offence, even rash driving, which carries at most six months in jail [2]. The Law Commission (1980) advised that the less serious the offence, the narrower the coercive power should be [2].
• Weaker checks: the Act lowered the rank of officer who can take measurements from sub-inspector to head constable, and it does not require magistrates to record reasons [2].

75-year retention: fails balancing

• About a lifetime: the same 75-year period applies to every offence, whether petty or heinous [2].
• Penalty for refusing: a person who refuses can be convicted under Section 186 IPC and kept on record for 75 years, even if acquitted of the original charge [2].
• Deletion only on request: the person must apply through a nodal officer. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, by contrast, the Board itself orders destruction [3].
• Excessive delegation: NCRB frames its own SOPs on storage and sharing, which runs against Siddharth Sarawagi (2014) [3].

Verdict: the Act only partly passes. Its aim is valid, but its reach is not the least intrusive option.

Overall, the Act updates policing but exceeds what is necessary. Proportionality could be restored through retention periods graded by offence, magistrate approval for measuring people accused of minor offences, automatic deletion, and NCRB SOPs placed before Parliament. That would align crime control with the dignity and privacy guaranteed by Article 21.