Introduction

“Biographic information” is commonly used imprecisely in practice to refer to both identification data (name, address, DOB) and biometric or biological identifiers (photograph, fingerprint, iris scan, facial image, etc.). In contemporary Indian litigation and regulatory practice, the latter category — what most statutes and courts call “biometric information” — has assumed singular importance because of mass digital identity systems (notably Aadhaar), expanding use of automated recognition systems, and privacy law development post‑Puttaswamy. For practising lawyers the term is not merely descriptive: collection, storage, sharing and judicial use of such data engage constitutional rights (privacy), statutory regimes (Aadhaar Act, IT rules), evidence law and technical questions of accuracy, provenance and chain of custody. This article treats “biographic information” as the biometric/biological attributes described in statutory and judicial discourse and provides a practice‑oriented roadmap.

Core Legal Framework

Primary statutes and provisions
– Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016
– Definition: The Act expressly defines “biometric information” as including “photograph, finger print, iris scan or other such biological attributes of an individual.” (Definition provision in the Act). The Act governs collection, storage, authentication and confidentiality of such information for Aadhaar purposes.
– Safeguards and offences: The Act places obligations on the issuing authority (UIDAI) and prescribes confidentiality, data security duties and penal consequences for unauthorised disclosure — see the Chapters dealing with confidentiality, security and offences under the Act (commonly: provisions dealing with preservation and confidentiality and penalties).
– Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules thereunder
– The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 treat biometric information as “sensitive personal data or information” requiring reasonable security safeguards by service providers.
– Indian Evidence Act, 1872
– Expert evidence: Section 45 (opinion of persons specially skilled) governs admissibility and weight of expert testimony about biometric comparisons, DNA reports etc.
– Electronic records: Section 65B (admissibility of electronic records) is critical where biometric data, authentication logs or device outputs are produced in electronic form.
– Constitutional law
– Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and the right to informational privacy recognised by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. Any governmental or statutory collection of biometric data engages privacy scrutiny — legality, necessity, proportionality.
– Procedure for compelled collection in criminal justice
– Compulsory procedures such as taking fingerprints, sample specimens, medical examination are governed by CrPC and rules; however, intrusive techniques engage constitutional safeguards and procedural requirements (see case law discussed below).

Practical Application and Nuances

How the concept arises in court work
– Identity and authentication disputes in civil and contractual matters
– Example: A bank claims a loan default based on Aadhaar‑enabled e‑KYC authentication or a digitally signed transaction authenticated by fingerprint. The defence may challenge whether authentication actually occurred, whether the authentication metadata (time, device ID, IP) correspond, or whether the biometric used was captured lawfully.
– Criminal cases — identification and forensic uses
– Fingerprint and DNA matching are routine investigative aids. Their admissibility and weight depend on proper collection (scene-to-lab chain), accredited laboratory procedures, expert testimony and the court’s evaluation of error rates.
– Administrative and data protection disputes
– Requests for cessation of use, deletion, or compensation following a data breach, or writ petitions challenging blanket mandatory use of biometric authentication for entitlement delivery.

Key practical questions for everyday litigation
1. What has been collected and under what authority?
– Always seek the legal basis: statutory power, consent record, contract clause. Where Aadhaar is involved, check whether authentication was voluntary, and whether statutory limits on mandatory use were respected.
2. Are logs and metadata available?
– Authentication records (transaction ID, date/time, requesting agency, purpose, device ID, geo‑location) are routinely available from system operators (e.g., UIDAI). These are often decisive to prove or disprove that an authentication event took place.
3. Can the technical process be tested/replicated?
– For disputed fingerprints or facial matches, request independent testing or a court‑appointed neutral expert. Ask for algorithmic thresholds, false acceptance and false rejection rates (FAR/FRR), operating settings, and vendor attestation.
4. Has chain of custody been preserved?
– For physical samples (fingerprint lifts, biological samples), establish continuous custody from collection through laboratory to court. Breaks in chain undermine reliability.
5. Is disclosure of algorithm/source code necessary and permissible?
– Vendors may claim trade secret protection. Courts have at times ordered disclosure to a neutral expert or anonymised metrics rather than full source code. Prepare targeted, proportional discovery requests.

Concrete examples and evidential approaches
– Civil authentication dispute (e‑KYC/aadhaar)
– Pleadings: (a) ask for UIDAI authentication logs and transaction IDs; (b) pray for production of consent metadata; (c) seek preservation/injunction if misuse alleged.
– Evidence: tender authentication receipts, audit trails, device logs, and expert affidavit explaining the process and trustworthiness.
– Criminal prosecution relying on fingerprint match
– Prove admissibility by examiners’ report, chain of custody, accreditation of laboratory, and produce the raw images and software outputs. Summon the analyst for cross‑examination under Section 45 (expert opinion).
– Data breach case
– Seek immediate injunction; demand data breach report, risk assessment, scope of data compromised (biometric vs demographic); claim interim compensation and forensic audit.

Technical evidence — what to demand in cross‑examination
– Device provenance and chain: Who captured the biometric? When and where? How stored and transmitted?
– Algorithmic performance: FAR, FRR, Equal Error Rate (EER), threshold used at the time.
– Human oversight: whether manual verification was done and by whom.
– Test reproducibility: whether the same sample produces consistent matches across systems.
– Accreditation and standards: compliance with ISO/IEC standards (e.g., ISO/IEC 19794 family) and lab accreditations (NABL).

Landmark Judgments

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Privacy decisions, Aadhaar cases)
2. Principle: The Supreme Court recognised the right to informational privacy as part of Article 21 and subjected state intrusions into personal data to a threefold test of legality, necessity and proportionality. The Aadhaar litigation saw the Court uphold the constitutionality of Aadhaar for certain welfare and statutory purposes while imposing limitations (notably on private use and requiring legislative safeguards).
3. Practical import: Any collection/use of biometric/biological attributes by the state (or its delegates) will be scrutinised for legality, purpose limitation and proportionality. Automatic or mandatory mass collection for non‑statutory purposes is vulnerable.
4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka
5. Principle: The Court held that certain involuntary techniques affecting the mind/body (narco‑analysis, polygraph) impinge on the right against self‑incrimination and bodily integrity; compelled physiological/psychological testing must be carefully tested against constitutional guarantees.
6. Practical import: While routine fingerprints and facial images taken in non‑coercive ways may be permissible, particularly intrusive or coercive techniques require justification; counsel should draw the distinction and rely on procedural safeguards.

(There are numerous other decisions on admissibility of DNA and fingerprint evidence; the consistent thread is courts demand chain of custody, accredited procedures and expert testimony.)

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

How to leverage the concept for clients
– When representing a defendant accused on biometric evidence:
– Attack provenance and chain of custody; insist on production of raw data and not just laboratory conclusions.
– Demand information on algorithmic thresholds and error metrics; seek independent testing.
– Raise privacy and proportionality where collection was intrusive, lacked consent or statutory basis.
– Move for neutral expert appointment or joint testing.
– When representing a claimant (data subject / victim of misuse):
– Seek immediate preservation orders for data and systems (freeze logs, prevent deletion).
– Pray for production of authentication logs, consent records, disclosure of third‑party recipients.
– Seek interim relief (injunctions, orders to cease processing) and long‑term remedies (deletion, compensation).
– When advising corporate clients that collect biometrics:
– Ensure lawful basis (consent/contract/statute), robust notice, DPIA (data protection impact assessment), encryption at rest and transit, limited retention, vendor audits and strong contractual clauses for subprocessors.
– Prepare for litigation: preserve logs, implement standard operating procedures, maintain audit trails and accreditation certificates.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– Treating algorithmic/biometric outputs as self‑validating evidence — expert explanation and documentation must accompany machine outputs.
– Failing to seek preservation of volatile logs and metadata early — loss of those records is fatal to reconstruction.
– Overbroad discovery demands for source code without proportionality — courts may refuse blanket disclosure; ask instead for targeted metrics or neutral expert access.
– Neglecting statutory limits — e.g., pushing Aadhaar linkage arguments without attention to the limited, statute‑constrained uses of Aadhaar can be futile.
– Ignoring technical metrics — lawyers must be able to understand and cross‑examine FAR/FRR, thresholds and test methods; collaborate with technical experts.

Practical checklist for pleadings and orders
– Plead anxieties and facts clearly: who collected, why, when, how, and what was shared.
– Seek preservation/injunctive relief at the outset.
– Pray for production of:
– Raw biometric images and raw device outputs
– Authentication logs/transaction IDs/consent logs
– Chain of custody documentation
– Laboratory accreditation and test protocols
– Error rate, threshold and vendor attestation (or neutral expert testing)
– If source code is essential, ask for a court‑monitored inspection by a neutral technical expert under confidentiality safeguards.

Conclusion

Biometric information (photograph, fingerprint, iris scan, facial images and similar biological attributes) sits at the intersection of technology, evidence law and constitutional privacy. For practitioners, success turns on three practical skills: (1) mapping the legal authority and limits for collection and use (Aadhaar/IT rules/constitutional principles); (2) forensic rigour — obtaining logs, raw data, chain of custody and technical metrics; and (3) strategic use of expert evidence and proportional discovery to test accuracy and provenance. Treat biometric outputs not as conclusive proof but as technically generated evidence that must be explained, tested and contextualised. Advance preservation early, insist on neutral expertise where necessary, and frame constitutional privacy arguments when collection is systemic or disproportionate. These steps will position counsel to convert technical complexity into effective factual and legal challenges or defences.