Executive Power Without Law: The Constitutional Limits of Police Facial Recognition Deployment in the Absence of Legislation

Author

Ishika Ishanvi, Nitisha Hansdah


Abstract

 Indian police forces are increasingly deploying facial recognition technology at scale, from the National Crime Records Bureau’s centralized Automated Facial Recognition System to state and city programs for watchlisting and live monitoring of political assemblies. None of it is authorized by statute. Rather, authorization is found in budgetary allocation, procurement documents, force orders and ministerial statements to Parliament, while the standards that would typically be prescribed by law match thresholds, retention periods, audit requirements and redress for wrongful identification are unilaterally prescribed by the deploying agency and often undisclosed. In this paper I argue that the resulting constitutional defect is not one of insufficient regulation but of absent legal authority. It argues that reading Ram Jawaya Kapur with Kharak Singh and Bharat Singh, Articles 73 and 162 permit the executive to continue the normal business of administration without legislation, but not to initiate a restriction of a constitutionally protected right; that "law" must be enacted or validly delegated. The deployment thus does not pass the Puttaswamy test at the threshold of legality, before the question of proportionality arises. Models from the European Union, the United Kingdom and United States offer a glimpse of what a compliant Indian statute should look like.



Keywords

executive power; facial recognition technology; proportionality; right to privacy; surveillance law



Full Text:

Download Paper PDF


References


  • Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India).
  • Bakshi, G. K. (2026, July 28). MP moves Supreme Court against police use of facial recognition technology & biometric surveillance at protest sites. LiveLaw. Retrieved from https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/mp-moves-supreme-court-against-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology-biometric-surveillance-at-protest-sites-543187
  • Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 S.C.C. 615 (India).
  • Bingham, T. (2010). The rule of law. London, England: Allen Lane.
  • Biometric Update. (2020, March). India authorizes roll out of automated biometric facial recognition in police investigations. Retrieved from https://www.biometricupdate.com/202003/india-authorizes-roll-out-of-automated-biometric-facial-recognition-in-police-investigations
  • Brut India. (2026, July). Why is Delhi Police using AI surveillance at the Jantar Mantar protest? Retrieved from https://www.brut.media/in/articles/why-is-delhi-police-using-ai-surveillance-at-the-jantar-mantar-protest
  • Chandra, A. (2020). Proportionality in India: A bridge to nowhere? University of Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal, 3(2), 55–86.
  • College of Policing. (2022). Live facial recognition: Authorised professional practice. Ryton-on-Dunsmore, England: Author.
  • Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, No. 11 of 2022, India Code (2022).
  • Data Protection Act 2018, c. 12 (U.K.).
  • Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023, India Code (2023).
  • Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, Gazette of India, pt. II sec. 3(i) (Nov. 13, 2025) (India).
  • Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 89.
  • District Registrar & Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 S.C.C. 496 (India).
  • European Data Protection Board & European Data Protection Supervisor. (2021). Joint Opinion 5/2021 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Brussels, Belgium: Authors.
  • Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. New York, NY: New York University Press.
  • Friedman, B., & Ponomarenko, M. (2015). Democratic policing. New York University Law Review, 90(6), 1827–1907.
  • Fuller, L. L. (1969). The morality of law (Rev. ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Fussey, P., & Murray, D. (2019). Independent report on the London Metropolitan Police Service's trial of live facial recognition technology. Colchester, England: Human Rights Centre, University of Essex.
  • Glukhin v. Russia, App. No. 11519/20 (Eur. Ct. H.R. July 4, 2023).
  • Grother, P., Ngan, M., & Hanaoka, K. (2019). Face recognition vendor test (FRVT) Part 3: Demographic effects (NISTIR 8280). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  • Harris, B. V. (1992). The "third source" of authority for government action. Law Quarterly Review, 108, 626–651.
  • Harris, B. V. (2007). The "third source" of authority for government action revisited. Law Quarterly Review, 123, 225–250.
  • The Hindu. (2020, March 4). Facial recognition system will not violate privacy. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/facial-recognition-system-will-not-violate-privacy/article61591011.ece
  • Home Office. (2021). Surveillance camera code of practice. London, England: Author.
  • House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee. (2022). Technology rules? The advent of new technologies in the justice system (HL Paper 180). London, England: House of Lords.
  • In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 332 (India).
  • India Const. arts. 19, 21, 73, 162, sch. VII.
  • Indian Telegraph Act, No. 13 of 1885, India Code (1885).
  • Interception of Communications Act 1985, c. 56 (U.K.).
  • Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
  • Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar), (2019) 1 S.C.C. 1 (India).
  • Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295 (India).
  • Malone v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, [1979] Ch. 344 (Eng.).
  • Malone v. United Kingdom, (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 14 (Eur. Ct. H.R.).
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597 (India).
  • Gen. Laws ch. 6, § 220 (2020).
  • Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 S.C.C. 353 (India).
  • National Crime Records Bureau. (2019). Request for proposal to procure National Automated Facial Recognition System (NAFRS). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Home Affairs.
  • Outlook India. (2026, July 24). CJP protest under AI watch: Delhi Police’s facial recognition vans spark privacy concerns. Retrieved from https://www.outlookindia.com/national/cjp-protest-under-ai-watch-delhi-polices-facial-recognition-vans-spark-privacy-concerns
  • People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301 (India).
  • R (Bridges) v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police, [2020] EWCA (Civ) 1058 (Eng.).
  • Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 549 (India).
  • Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), 2024 O.J. (L 2024/1689).
  • Right to Information Act, No. 22 of 2005, India Code (2005).
  • Ryder, M. (2022). The Ryder Review: Independent legal review of the governance of biometric data in England and Wales. London, England: Ada Lovelace Institute.
  • & Marper v. United Kingdom, (2009) 48 E.H.R.R. 50 (Eur. Ct. H.R.).
  • B. 397, 68th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mont. 2023) (codified at Mont. Code Ann. §§ 44-15-101 to -110).
  • B. 6280, 66th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2020) (codified at Wash. Rev. Code ch. 43.386).
  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat Singh, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1170 (India).
  • Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance, S.F., Cal., Ordinance No. 103-19 (2019).
  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India).


 

Share your valuable work from Social Media Buttons