--- layout: default title: "Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill (April 2012): High Level Concerns" description: "A March 2013 CIS post by Elonnai Hickok outlining high-level concerns with the April 2012 working draft of the Human DNA Profiling Bill, examining overreaching offence categories, weak access controls, inadequate consent provisions, and missing privacy safeguards, prepared under the SAFEGUARDS project." authors: ["Elonnai Hickok"] categories: [Centre for Internet and Society, Elonnai Hickok] date: 2013-03-12 source: "Centre for Internet and Society" permalink: /elonnai/draft-human-dna-profiling-bill-april-2012/ created: 2026-08-22 homepage_featured: true --- **"Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill (April 2012): High Level Concerns"** is a policy post by [Elonnai Hickok](/elonnai/) published by the [Centre for Internet and Society](/cis/) on 12 March 2013. It sets out Elonnai Hickok's high-level concerns with the April 2012 working draft of India's Human DNA Profiling Bill, covering broad offence categories, access and consent controls, the treatment of DNA evidence, population testing, and missing privacy safeguards. The research was undertaken as part of the SAFEGUARDS project. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [External Link](#external-link) ## Article Details
In 2007 the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill was piloted by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, with the objective of regulating the use of DNA for forensic and other purposes. In February 2012 another draft of the Bill was leaked. The February 2012 Bill was drafted by the Department of Biotechnology. Another working draft of the Bill was created in April 2012. The most recent version of the Bill seeks to create DNA databases at the state, regional, and national level.
This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.
Each database will contain profiles of victims, offenders, suspects, missing persons and volunteers for the purpose of establishing identity in criminal and civil proceedings. The Bill also establishes a process for certifying DNA laboratories, and creating a DNA board for overseeing the carrying out of the Act. Though it is important to carefully regulate the use of DNA for criminal purposes, and such a law is needed in India, the present working draft of the Bill is lacking important safeguards and contains overreaching provisions, which could lead to violation of individual rights. The text of the 2012 draft is still being discussed and has not been finalized. Below are high level concerns that CIS has with the April 2012 draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.
The schedule of the Bill lists applicable instances for human DNA profiling and addition to the DNA database. Under this list, the Bill lays out nine Acts, for example the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, and states that offences under these Acts are applicable instances of human DNA profiling. This allows the scope of the database to be expansive, as any individual who has committed an offence found under any of these Acts to be placed on the DNA database, and might include offences for which DNA evidence is not useful.
In the schedule under section C Civil disputes and other civil matters the Bill lists a number of civil disputes and civil matters for which DNA can be taken and entered onto the database. For example:
In these instances no crime has been committed and there is no justification for taking the DNA of the individual without their consent. In cases of civil disputes
Recommendation: Offences for which DNA can be collected must be criminal and must be specified individually by the Bill. When DNA is used in civil cases, the consent of the individual must be taken. In civil cases a DNA profile should not be stored on the database. DNA profiling and storage on a database should not be allowed in instances like v, vi, vii listed above.
The Bill allows for the DNA Data Bank Manager to determine when it is appropriate to communicate whether the DNA profile received is already contained in the Data Bank, and any other information contained in the Data Bank in relation to the DNA profile received.
Recommendation: The Data Bank Manager should not be given the power to determine appropriate instances for the communication of information. Law enforcement agencies, DNA laboratories, etc. should be required to gain prior authorization, from the DNA Board, before requesting the disclosure of information from the DNA Data Bank Manager. Upon receiving proof of authorization, the DNA databank can share the requested information.
The preamble to the Bill inaccurately states:
The Dexoxyribose Nucleic Acid (DNA) analysis of body substances is a powerful technology that makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and further to establish the biological relationship, if any between two individuals, living or dead without any doubt.
Recommendation: The Bill should recognize that DNA evidence is not infallible. For example, false matches can occur based on the type of profiling system used, and that error can take place in the chain of custody of the DNA sample. The "definition" of DNA profiling is too loose in the Bill. Any technology used to create DNA profiles is subject to error. The estimate of this error should be experimentally obtained, rather than being a theoretical projection.
The Bill only restricts access to information on the DNA database that relates to a victim or to a person who has been excluded as a suspect in relevant investigations.
Section 43: Access to the information in the National DNA Data Bank shall be restricted in the manner as may be prescribed if the information relates to a DNA profile derived from a) a victim of an offence which forms or formed the object of the relevant investigation, or b) a person who has been excluded as a suspect in the relevant investigation.
Recommendation: Though it is important that access is restricted in these instances, access should also be restricted for: volunteers, missing persons, and victims. Broad access to every index in the database should not be permitted when a DNA sample for a crime is being searched for a match. Ideally, a crime scene index will be created, and samples will only be compared to that specific crime scene. The access procedure should be transparent with regular information published in an annual report, minutes of oversight meetings taken, etc.
In three places the Bill mentions that a procedure for the collection of DNA profiles will be established, yet no process is enumerated in the actual text of the Bill.
Recommendation: According to the Criminal Procedure Code, section 53 and 54, DNA samples can only be collected by certified medical professionals. This must be reflected by the Bill. The Bill should also state that the collection of DNA must take place in a secure location and in a secure manner. When DNA is collected, consent must be taken, unless the individual is convicted of a crime for which DNA evidence is directly relevant or the court has ordered the collection. When DNA is collected, personal identification information should not be sent with samples to laboratories, and all transfers of data (from police station to lab) must be secure. Upon collection, information regarding the collection of information and potential use and misuse of DNA information must be provided to the individual.
The provisions in the Bill allow aggrieved individuals to bring complaints to the DNA Board. If the complaint is not addressed, the individual can take the complaint to the court. Though grievances can be taken to the Board and the court, it is not clear if the individual has the right to appeal the collection, analysis, sharing, and use of his/her DNA. The text of section 58 implies that the Board and the Central government will have the power to take action based on complaints. This power was not listed above in the sections where the powers of the board and the central government are defined, thus it is unclear what actions the Board or the Central Government would be able to take on complaint.
Section 58: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder save on a complaint made by the Central Government or its officer or Board or its officer or any other person authorized by them: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall prevent an aggrieved person from approaching a court, if upon his application to the Central Government or the Board, no action is taken by them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application.
Recommendation: Individuals should be allowed to appeal a decision to collect DNA or share a DNA profile, and take any grievance directly to the court. If the Board or the Central Government will have a role in hearing complaints, etc. These must be enumerated in the provisions of the Act.
Though the main focus of the Bill is for the use of DNA in criminal and civil cases, the provisions of the Bill also allow for population testing and research to be done on collected samples.
Section 4: The Board shall consist of the following Members appointed from amongst persons of ability, integrity, and standing who have knowledge or experience in DNA profiling including.. (m) A population geneticist to be nominated by the President, Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi-Member.
Section 40: Information relating to DNA profiles, DNA samples and records relating thereto shall be made available in the following instances, namely, (e) for creation and maintenance of a population statistics database that is to be used, as prescribed, or the purposes of identification research, protocol development or quality control provide that it does not contain any personally identifiable information and does not violate ethical norms.
Recommendation: Delete these provisions. If DNA testing is going to done for population analysis purposes, regulations for this must be provided for in a separate legislation, stored in separate database, informed consent taken from each participant, and an ethics board must be established. It is not sufficient or ethical to conduct population testing only on DNA samples from victims, offenders, suspects, and volunteers.
The Bill empowers the board to formulate regulations for, and the Central Government to make Rules to, a number of provisions that should be within the text of the Bill itself. By leaving these provisions to Regulations and Rules, the Bill is a skeleton which when enacted will only allow for DNA Labs to be certified and DNA databases to be established. Aspects that need to be included as provisions include:
Section 12: The Board shall exercise and discharge the following functions for the purposes of this Act namely
Section 65(1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act
There are a number of places in the Bill which use broad and vague language. This is problematic as it expands the potential scope of the Bill. Instances where broad language is used includes:
Preamble: There is, thus, need to regulate the use of human DNA Profiles through an Act passed by the Parliament only for Lawful purposes of establishing identity in a criminal or civil proceeding and for other specified purposes.
Recommendation: All broad and vague language should be deleted and replaced with specific language.
The validity of DNA profiles found outside of India is unclear as the Act only extends to the whole of India.
The Bill contains provisions that are inconsistent including:
Recommendation: The introduction to the Bill states that only a National DNA Data Bank will be established, yet in the provisions of the Bill it states that Regional and State level DNA databanks will also be established. It should be clarified in the introduction to the Bill that state level, regional level, and a national level DNA database will be created.
Section 33: "The DNA Data Bank Manager shall be a person not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent and he shall report to the Member–Secretary of the Board. The DNA Data Bank Manager shall be a scientist with understanding of computer applications and statistics."
Recommendation: This is not sufficient qualifications. The DNA Data Bank Manager needs to have experience and expertise handling, working with, and managing DNA for forensic purposes.
According to section 16(2), before withdrawing approval granted to a DNA laboratory...the Board will give time to the laboratory...for taking necessary steps to comply with such directions...and conditions."
Recommendation: This section should specify that during the time period of gaining certification, the DNA laboratory is not allowed to process DNA.
Section 45 of the Bill allows any individual undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or under sentence of death to apply to the court which convicted him for an order for DNA testing. The Bill lists seven conditions that must be met for this DNA evidence to be accepted and used in court.
Recommendation: This section speaks only to the use of DNA in courts upon request by a convicted individual. This section should lay down standards for all instances of use of DNA in courts. Included in this, the provision should clarify that when DNA is used, corroborating evidence will be required in courts, and if confirmatory samples will be taken from defendants. Individuals should also have the right to have a second sample taken and re-analyzed as a check, and individuals must have a right to obtain re-analysis of crime scene forensic evidence in the event of appeal.
Besides section 38 which requires that all DNA profiles, samples, and records are kept confidential, the Bill leaves all other privacy protections to be recommended by the DNA profiling Board.
Section 12(o) The Board shall exercise and discharge the following functions…"Making recommendation for provision of privacy protection laws, regulations and practices relating to access to, or use of, store DNA samples or DNA analyses with a view to ensure that such protections are sufficient."
Recommendation: Basic privacy protections such as access, use, and storage of DNA samples should be written into the provisions of the Bill and not left as recommendations for the Board to make.