1.

FINGERPRINT, DNA SAMPLES, FRISKING/PAT-DOWN

SEARCH/BODY CAVITY SEARCH (ALL ARE BIOMETRIC
SEARCHES) AND ARTICLE 20(3) + OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARDS, AND THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE PRACTICE
OF RANDOM BIOMETRIC WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARDS ON THE VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES/MARGINALISED SECTIONS OF THE SOCIETY.
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court held that

(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk
away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P.
392 U. S. 16.

(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to

find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 392 U. S. 16.

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given

case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a
reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and
dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for
crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 392 U. S. 20-27.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light
of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable
caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 392 U. S.
21-22.
In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012), was a United
States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that officials may strip-search
individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to
jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband.

Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969)

In connection with a rape investigation the Meridian, Mississippi, police, without

warrants, brought numerous Negro youths to the police station for questioning and
fingerprinting. Petitioner was thus questioned and fingerprinted, and released.
Thereafter, concededly without a warrant or probable cause for arrest, the police
drove petitioner to Jackson and confined him in jail overnight. After he was
questioned and signed a statement, he was returned to Meridian and jailed. While so
confined, he was again fingerprinted and these prints were sent to the FBI for
comparison with latent prints found in the victim's home. The fingerprint evidence
was admitted at petitioner's trial for rape, over objection that it was the product of
unlawful detention, and he was convicted. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the
conviction.

According to United States Department of Justice The Fourth Amendment does not
bar the fingerprinting of a properly seized person. "Fingerprinting involves none of
the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or
search." See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 727 (1969). So long as the initial
seizure of the person is reasonable, as in a lawful arrest, subsequent fingerprinting is
permissible. It is also possible that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment could
be met through "narrowly circumscribed procedures for obtaining, during the course
of a criminal investigation, the fingerprints of individuals for whom there is no
probable cause for arrest."

State of Uttar Pradesh V/s Sunil

Settling a doubt which has troubled crime investigators for long, the Supreme
Court has ruled that asking an accused to give finger or foot prints for investigation
purposes did not violate his fundamental right to protect himself from becoming a
witness against himself.
The question before a bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Rohinton Fali
Nariman was "whether compelling an accused to provide his fingerprints or footprints
etc would come within the purview of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, that
is compelling an accused of an offence to be a 'witness' against himself"?

This question arose in a case involving the murder of four persons of a family in
Etawah in September 2000. The main accused died during the trial but his alleged
associate, who had refused to give finger and foot prints to the investigating officer
despite a direction from the trial court, was convicted of the crime and sentenced to
death.
The HC acquitted him while holding, among other things, that the trial court could not
have drawn an adverse inference because the accused refused to give a specimen of
his palm impression in spite of the court order. The UP government and a relative of
the murdered persons appealed against the acquittal in the SC.

The SC bench took note of the accused person's fundamental right under Article
20(3), which provides, "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself." It also examined a 2010 judgment (Selvi vs Karnataka), in
which the SC had said investigators could not force an accused to undergo narco-
analysis or lie-detector tests as it involved extracting self-incriminating statements,
which would violate protection under Article 20(3).
After examining the constitutional provision and other SC judgments, the bench said,
"Any person can be directed to give his footprints for corroboration of evidence and
the same cannot be considered a violation of protection guaranteed under Article
20(3) of the Constitution." It overturned the HC ruling that if an accused refused to
give fingerprints or footprints, despite court direction, no adverse inference could be
drawn against him.
Justices Ghose and Nariman said, "It may, however, be noted that non-compliance of
such direction of the court may lead to adverse inference, nevertheless, the same
cannot be entertained as the sole basis of conviction." This caveat - non-compliance
leading to adverse inference could not be the sole ground for conviction - saved
accused Sunil from the gallows.

Finger Print Evidence Of Accused Taken Without Magistrate's Order Not Illegal:SC

"It cannot be held that the fingerprint evidence was illegally obtained merely due to
the absence of a magisterial order authorizing the same."

2. Intermediate Scrutiny and Strict Judicial Scrutiny Test

3. Preventive Justice System and Due Process

4. Right to Privacy and secret installation of miniaturised

cameras in public toilets
/

5. RIGHT TO PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND CAM INDIVIDUALS;

AND STATE’S RESTRICTIONS ON PORNOGRAPHY.
https://lawtrend.in/is-it-illegal-to-watch-porn-in-india/
6. Live-In Relationships and Right to Marriage

7. Marital Rape and Denial of the Right to safe abortion is a

violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/court-grants-abortion-rights-for-marital-
rape-101664474604464-amp.html

X versus The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Anr.
September 28, 2022

8. Right to Personal Autonomy and Exploitation of Surrogate

mothers
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/comment/surrogates-victims-of-abuse-
exploitation-712289

9. Effect of essential religious test on the right to personal

autonomy and decisional privacy of an individual.
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/essential-religious-practices-court-in-review/

https://www.barandbench.com/columns/question-of-law-essential-religious-practices-
test-a-problem-in-our-jurisprudence-dy-chandrachud-j
10. Ex-post Environment Clearance, Precautionary Principle
and Environment Impact Assessment
https://thewire.in/environment/supreme-court-environmental-law-pahwa-plastics

11. Human Dignity of the Gig economy workers

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/19/uber-drivers-workers-uk-
supreme-court-rules-rights

https://nyaaya.org/guest-blog/the-law-for-gig-workers-in-india/#:~:text=Are%20there
%20laws%20protecting%20gig,%2C%20overtime%2C%20leave%2C%20etc.

12. Right to Equal Concern and equal respect and the Right to
Education of the Persons with Disability

13. Rehabilitation of Child Labourers

14. Fast Fashion and Sustainable Development of the Water

Resources

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/30/fashion/fashion-laws-regulations.html

https://www.lawyered.in/legal-disrupt/articles/insight-fashion-laws-india/
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c5bb03b7-669d-40c0-8390-
34336369bb17

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1865/Management-of-Water-and-Water-
Laws-In-India.html

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l420-Water-Management.html