08 August 2023

MAINS DAILY QUESTIONS & MODEL ANSWERS

Q1. In the Right to Privacy case, the Supreme Court said that any limitations on privacy must be reasonable. Is it in the best interests of society to conduct widespread surveillance using facial recognition? Examine its application in terms of internal security and the hazards it poses.

GS II – Constitution related issues

Introduction:

• The Supreme Court stated in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (the “right to privacy case”) that the right to privacy is a component of the right to life, which is a basic right, but it can be lowered if the interests of society outweigh the right to personal liberty.
• It used the reasonableness standard from Article 21’s reasonable limits to limit this privilege.

It is a Triple Test that must satisfy the following criteria:

• It must be supported by legislation, i.e. a statue.
• There must be a valid state interest.
• Proportionality test: The societal interest must be balanced against the reduced right to privacy.
• To evaluate the lifespan of the facial recognition system, we must apply the Triple Reasonability Test, weighing the benefits and hazards.
• The benefits of using a facial recognition technology for widespread surveillance in society include increased security and labor automation.

Enhanced security:

• It helps law enforcement by making it easier to find criminals, thieves, and other trespassers, among other things.
• Maintaining internal security: Using merely a face scan, facial recognition can help detect terrorists or other offenders.
• Safer technology: It cannot be hacked because there is nothing to steal or change, such as a password.
• Personal surveillance cameras and facial recognition software can be used to secure personal electronics.
• Faster processing: The process of recognizing a face takes a second or less, allowing for quick and efficient verification of a person. Furthermore, this technology is tough to deceive, which is a positive.
• Seamless integration: It is fairly simple to integrate; it does not necessitate the expenditure of additional funds, and most facial recognition solutions are compatible with the majority of security software.

Automation of identification:

• Reduces human errors: Previously, security guards had to perform manual identification of a person, which took too long and was not very accurate; however, 3D facial recognition technology and the use of infrared cameras significantly increased facial recognition accuracy and made it extremely difficult to fool.
• More financially viable: hiring individuals for any purpose is always expensive.
• Identification technique that not only takes seconds but is also very accurate.

Threatsposed by mass surveillance using a facial recognition system:

• Breach of Privacy: When coupled with CCTV systems, the operator can track your exact location at all times, equivalent to digital stalking. The principle of Consent is broken because the technology is automated.
• Civil-Political Misuse: The example of China, which maintains track of its citizens’ activities with such activities, demonstrates the potential hazards of such a system.
• It may jeopardize civil liberties and democratic rights.
• It could be used to infiltrate intimate relationships.
• Vulnerability in recognition: Because no software is perfect, even minor changes in camera angle or appearance might inevitably result in an error, posing two problems:
• Problem of False Negative: Such a system is not foolproof, and it is not a replacement for intelligence gathering because it is known to falter more frequently than known.
• False Positive Problem: A system like this can incorrectly identify a case, leading to arbitrary arrests of people who have nothing to do with any crime.
• Data Security: Because misusing previously stored data, such as theft, is conceivable, data security is another issue.
• If such dangers remain, then mass surveillance via facial recognition is unquestionably a threat to personal liberty since it violates our privacy and threatens civil, democratic, and political rights.

However, we may address these problems by implementing:

• improved regulations,
• Infrastructure for data security that is efficient and
• Improved legal and organizational structures that ensure accountability.

Conclusion:  

• Given the economic and security benefits that such technologies provide, if these solutions can address the concerns, this would undoubtedly pass the triple test of reasonableness. Because this technology is now possible, it would be difficult to stop its use indefinitely, so it is in the best interest of society to frame a set of rules and an organizational structure to regulate its inevitable adoption.

Q2. Discuss the features of the whistleblower protection framework. Also deliberate on is it sufficient to protect the honest from the corrupt in India? Discuss.

 GS II – Government Policies and Interventions

Introduction:

• A whistleblower is a public servant or any other person, including an NGO, who discloses information to the CVC or State Vigilance Commission about the corrupt use of public funds or resources.

Mechanisms for protecting whistleblowers in India:

2014 Whistleblower Protection Act:  

• It seeks to protect the identity of whistleblowers, defined as individuals who make a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offense committed by a public servant; the Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the complainant’s identity except to the department head if he deems it necessary.

The CVC Act:

• It provides for the CVC and state VCs to initiate investigations into complaints filed by anyone against any official in the AIS category or Group A officers.

The Lokpal Act:

• Its mission includes all categories of public officials, including the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Group ABCD officers, and it has the authority to oversee and supervise any investigation conducted by the CVC in such a situation; the Lokayukta at the state level has similar powers.
• The Right to Information Act offers whistleblowers enormous influence by requiring officers to divulge specific sorts of information.

However, such measures are sometimes considered as insufficient:

• Limitations on information sharing: The government may refuse to provide information if it believes it is required for national security/interest or foreign relations, however these are overly broad and subjective categories.
• Other countries’ whistleblower laws additionally limit the revelation of certain types of information, including as information relating to national security and intelligence, information obtained in a fiduciary capacity, and any disclosure expressly prohibited by law.
• Lack of physical protection: Since the enactment of the RTI Act, about 100 RTI advocates have been assassinated across the country, and many more are harassed on a daily basis.
• Lack of expedited hearings: When cases of corruption are delayed, the corrupt gain access to authority, weakening the case for justice.
• Investigation via current mechanisms: The CVC and CBI, which are crucial investigating bodies in accusations of corruption, are sometimes dismissed as “caged parrots,” creating concerns about their independence and consequently impartiality.

Conclusion:

• Various legal experts in India, including Retd. CJI Madan B. Lokur, believe that the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014, should be fully revised to incorporate improved mechanisms to secure whistleblowers’ physical safety, fast track courts, and independent investigation.