Delhi High Court reviews challenge to biometric data collection under Criminal Procedure Act
Two Jamia Milia Islamia students challenged India's Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act in Delhi High Court, alleging their biometric data was collected in breach of privacy rights after participating in peaceful campus protests. They seek deletion of their data and a declaration that the Act violates fundamental rights by permitting 'disproportionate' collection without proper parameters.
What happened
Two Jamia Milia Islamia students, Sahibe Alam and Saurabh Tripathi, participated in peaceful protests on campus in December 2024. In April 2025, Delhi Police questioned both and collected their biometrics and photographs. While Alam was not charged with any offence, Tripathi was booked for the campus protest.
On 25 February 2026, the students filed a petition in Delhi High Court challenging the constitutionality of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to Delhi Police, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the National Crime Records Bureau.
Reported impact
The petitioners argue the Act permits 'disproportionate' collection of 'sensitive, personal information'. They contend that biometric data can be stored by NCRB for up to 75 years and claim the Act creates no differentiation between convicts and accused persons or between minor and severe offences.
The students seek deletion and destruction of their collected biometric data and a declaration that the Act and its rules are unconstitutional for infringing privacy rights, the right against self-incrimination, and protections against arbitrary state action.
Index analysis
The petitioners note they were neither convicted, arrested, preventively detained, nor ordered to pay security bonds—the categories under the Act that permit biometric collection. Senior advocate Diya Kapur argued the Act's broad scope allows police to collect biometrics for minor offences like protest participation, which she contended is contrary to the K Puttaswamy judgment on privacy rights.
Governance controls
The petition raises concerns about the lack of specificity in rules governing when biometric collection is permitted and the potential for misuse through unwarranted data gathering without proper parameters.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.