Statement in dna bill

1. Citizens and Rights groups demand that DNA Bill, 2019 NOT
be passed by Parliament
We, a group of concerned citizens, lawyers, activists, human rights workers, researchers and
academicians, demand that the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill 2019
should NOT be passed in Parliament. The Parliamentary Standing Committee tabled its report
in Feb 2021 and two members of the Committee have given their dissent as the Bill does not
provide adequate safeguards to protect an individual’s right to privacy while collecting and
storing DNA profiles.
The DNA Bill, officially known as the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill
2019 is being proposed to regulate the use of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and with a
stated purpose of establishing the identity of victims, suspects, undertrials, offenders, missing
persons and unknown deceased persons (and their relatives) in criminal and civil cases by
permitting the collection and storage of DNA profiles which are specific patterns determined
using the DNA.
This data will be collected, accessed, indexed and recorded in central and local databases.
DNA profiles can provide markers specific to each person. Essentially, for allowed cases,
bodily substances of persons may be collected by investigation agencies. Such cases include
criminal offences, cases of medical termination of pregnancy, immoral trafficking, parental
disputes, issues relating to immigration or emigration, establishing the identity of an
individual, etc.
We are extremely concerned by the amount of power and access to private information of
individuals that will be given to the Government by this Bill. In the backdrop of the recent
Pegasus scandal in which the central government was exposed for using malicious spyware
to illegally snoop on people of the country (especially people that the government did not
like), the intentions to surveil its people are very evident. This DNA Bill provides no compelling
State interest for it to be plunging public money in this massive database. This bill will only
expand the scope of surveillance and legitimize it. It will put not just a few individuals but all
individuals constantly under State surveillance. This Bill directly violates an individual's right
to privacy. As individuals, we all have DNA that the State can collect and hence at the face of
it, we must ALL be concerned by this Bill. The proposed bill is of extreme concern for the
following reasons
1. DNA data is not fool proof: Use of DNA data is a developing field and it may not give
the correct ‘profile’ of a person. It works more by association than correlation. So if a person
was at a given place at a given time and traces of her DNA are found there, she can be wrongly
linked to the incidents occurring therein even if she isn't connected to it. It will then place the
burden on her to prove that her presence was only incidental. Despite this concern being
raised, the Department of Biotechnology was firm in its belief that DNA technology is infallible
and hence can be depended upon unquestionably. Neither do judges, investigative agencies

2. know of this scope of error in DNA. And even if one were to assume that science behind DNA
is infallible, scientists are not.
2. Gathering Data for an all-encompassing database: The categories of people for which
DNA is being collected to ascertain identity are so vast that they can potentially include
anyone under the sun. There is no category of “suspect” as per any law of the country and
yet DNA of “suspects” are sought to be collected under the Bill. By including the term suspect
and not even defining it under the Bill, any arbitrary definition can be assumed in the rules or
in operation. This can give authorities excessive power to collect DNA under this category of
suspect. While Section 22 allows people to ‘voluntarily’ submit their DNA if they were present
or are being questioned about a crime or they intend to find out information about a missing
relative, in effect it is not. Over time, the system can create situations which compel people
to provide the data even against their own preferences. We have the example of the Aadhar
card where it is claimed to be voluntary, but in fact people are denied essential rations and
healthcare if they do not provide their Aadhar card details. This has led to exclusion,
discrimination and targeting of certain individuals. This was particularly visible during the
Covid pandemic, where those who most needed a social safety net, were not able to provide
the necessary proof of their existence.
3. Right against Self-incrimination: No person can be compelled to give any form of
evidence against himself/herself that incriminates them in a crime. And this is our
fundamental right. Although in theory people can resist their data being collected, which can
be potentially used to incriminate them. In reality consent is often not taken and a person’s
DNA can be forcefully taken from them for testing and to assess their association with a
crime/scene. There is also a clause that states that anyone accused of committing a crime for
which the punishment is more than 7 years imprisonment, life imprisonment, or the death
sentence, then the Magistrate can waive off the requirement of their consent. Since DNA can
be collected and used in criminal cases without their consent it attacks an individual's
fundamental right against self-incrimination. In practice, anyone can be forced without
consent to submit their DNA.
4. Different Value of Consent based on offence: Section 21 (1) says that consent of the
person whose DNA is being collected must be taken in writing. Although in criminal
investigations, it is very possible for the police to coerce you into giving your consent. The two
exceptions to this rule however show that this right is namesake:
a. The right to provide (or deny) consent is not applicable to people who are arrested for
‘specified offences’ - offences punishable with death or imprisonment exceeding a term of
seven years.
b. If a person refuses to give their consent or if it cannot be obtained, the person
investigating the case may approach the Magistrate having jurisdiction to seek permission to
obtain this information. The Magistrate has to apply their mind to see if there is reasonable
cause to believe that this collection of ‘bodily substances’ may either help in confirming or
disproving whether the person arrested was involved in committing the offence. So
technically, the State has an upper hand or an alternate option that just razors across the right

3. to consent of individuals. In the latter option, no space is provided for the individual to
represent themselves before the Magistrate and argue against submitting their data.
5. Attack on persons dignity and bodily autonomy: The sources from which DNA can be
collected are directly from the body, clothes worn, material carried. Investigators have broad
and vague powers to collect DNA from sources that can be specified through a regulation,
giving the executive the ability to specify any source they want. What is disturbing is that the
police can collect photographs and or video recordings of genitalia of women. Even the
Parliamentary Standing Committee Report noted that there is no technology to derive DNA
profiles from photographs, videos or print of any body part. Such excessive powers to collect
DNA from bodily sources, even genitalia, is an attack on a person's dignity and bodily
autonomy.
6. Retention of Data: In criminal matters, an accused person can approach the court to
remove their DNA data from the Data Bank after the trial. And by default unless one moves
to court, the DNA data stays not only in the Data bank but also in the DNA Lab. For example
the Bill provides that “the information contained in the crime scene index shall be retained”.
It does not talk about the time period for which it will be retained which raises concerns of it
being stored indefinitely.
7. Attack on privacy: The fundamental right to privacy covers at least three aspects – (i)
intrusion with an individual’s physical body, (ii) informational privacy, and (iii) privacy of
choice. All three aspects of privacy have been completely ignored by the DNA Bill. Without a
data protection regime and necessary protections to safeguard the right to privacy, the DNA
Bill is an attack on our fundamental right.
***************************************************************************
While legal systems are vital for the safety and protection of citizens, it cannot be at the cost
of infringing on personal rights and liberties. We also have reason to be extremely concerned
about the motives and intent of the government. Laws should offer equal protection to all
citizens and not be framed in a way to make someone vulnerable purely because of their
gender, class, caste or religious location. There is a real danger that the DNA Bill will be used
to frame/target certain individuals and communities, especially those who challenge or raise
their voices against government actions and policies. This kind of targeting can lead to a loss
of our vibrant democracy and become a tool to silence dissent.
We already have several laws in the country such as the sedition law and UAPA that are being
used with alacrity by the government to target citizens who question the state. This DNA Bill
would only contribute to the state armoury against its citizens. As much as this kind of
legislation would violate fundamental rights, if passed, it could be used to indulge in pseudo-
judicial reasoning: such as affirming community 'traits', and caste 'characteristics'. We have a
bad record of people of vulnerable caste and religious groups routinely being picked up by
the police for ‘interrogation” and being subject to torture and extreme forms of harassment
and extortion. In a country where birth-based discrimination and violence continue to define
social relationships, this law can reinforce caste and religious discrimination.

4. We, the undersigned therefore oppose the DNA Bill and demand that it not be passed in
Parliament. We reject a Bill that gives undue power to the state over its citizens and can easily
become a tool of exclusion, discrimination, harassment and human rights abuse.
For queries, please contact Manavi Atri at 84892 72331 or Prof Krishnaswamy at 8012558638
Name of individual/organisation Affiliation/Area of work
1 Radha Gopalan Educator
2 Radha holla
Human rights, nutrition and conflicts
of interest
3 V. Geetha Writer
4 Quill Foundation Researcher
5 Dr. Amar Jesani Independent researcher and teacher
6 CPI ML CPIML LIBERATION
7 Sagari R Ramdas Food Sovereignty Alliance , India
8 Rashmi Academia
9 S.Krishnaswamy
Retired Senior Professor ex Madurai
Kamaraj University Madurai
10 Rumi Harish Alternative Law Forum
11 Indian Social Institute, Bangalore Human rights
12 Individual Ahmedabad
13 Chaand Ohri Internal Medicine
14 B.A.Sathya Prakash CNC Programmer
15 Srikantan M Engineer (IT)
16 Magada F Journalist
17 Jan Swasthya Abhiyan Physician n public health activist
18 Dr Shalu Nigam Advocate
19 Brinelle D'souza Co-convener, JSA-MUMBAI
20 JSA-MUMBAI Health Rights Movement
21 Health, Ethics and Law Institute, FMES Health, ethics, law policy
22 Meena Kandasamy Writer
23 Ramnarayan
Independent Nature Educator,
Ecologist
24 Dr Mohamed Khader Meeran Medicine/Public Health
25 FORWARD TRUST Women's issues
26 Basawa Prasad Advocate
27 Dr. Kamaxi Bhate Health Sector
28 Nachiket Udupa Concerned individual

5. 29 Malar Slums
30 Ashwini Clinical Research
31 Latha Ramji Individual
32 Swadesh Goa
33 Kavita Srivastava PUCL/ Human Rights and Civil Liberties
34 YWCA Of India Civil Society
35 Nandini Sundar Sociologist
36 Ponniah Rajamanickam People Science Movement
37 BGVS Education
38 Madhuri Jeevan Self Awareness trust
39 Sumathi.A.P Bangalore
40 Manavi Atri Researcher and Lawyer
41 Chandni Ganesh Student, St. Joseph's College
42 Syed Tousif Masood Naavu Bharatiyaru
43 Sauro/aipf Peoples struggle
44 Manasi Pingle Sustainability
45 Genomics division,ICAR NBPGR Plant DNA Finger printing & Genomics
46 Priyanka Art and education
47 PUCL President, Bangalore
48 Anusha Bhat Azim Premji University
49 Dr. Soma Marla
Principal Scientist, DNAfinger printing
& crop Genomics, ICAR NBPGR New
Delhi
50 Fraternity movement Karnataka State
51 B Suresha Film maker/ Playwright
52 Dr. Vivek K Mental health
53 R.Manohar
Community and human
rights,law,good governance
54 R Srinivasan Prof (Retd) IIMB
55 Prof. Mohan Rao Public health
56 Riya Kothari Lawyer
57 Dr. Shakeel Consultant Physician
58 Siddharth K J Independent Researcher
59 Dr.Suhas Kolhekar,(Virologist) Health Rights and Social Justice
60 Mohammad Arbaaz Chartered accountant
61 TN Rathore Journalism

6. 62 Dwiji Guru Sustainable Food Systems
63 Roop Sen Consulting
64 Ammu Abraham Women's rights and civil liberties
65 Vinay Kulkarni Public health
66 PUCL Human rights
67 Lalitha Matthew A citizen
68 Meena Gopal Academia
69 Roma Thomas Teaching
70 Prajval Shastri Astrophysicist
71 Kshitij Goyal Law student
72 Bharathy Singaravel Culture Reporter
73 VIJAYAKUMAR Indian School of Social Sciences
74 Javed Ahmed Self employee
75 Mary lpe Academic
76 Madeeha Student
77 Indira C Public Health
78 Elina Lawyer
79 Marica V Translation and editing
80 Sourabh Journalist Media
81 Jenny Rowena University of Delhi
82 Swamy S Education
83 Pooja Financial services
84 Aiman Khan Innocence Network India
85 Robin Advocate
86 Shilpa Prasad Advocate
87 Harini Gopalswami Writer and farmer
88 Arundhati Education
89 Nisha Biswas Feminists in Resistance
90 Mallika V Individual Bengaluru
91 Anith Haveri
92 Quill foundation law
93 innocence network law
94
Ravi Teja Mandapaka - National Institute of
Agriculture Extension Management,
Hyderabad
Senior Research Fellow - Nutrition
Security.
95 Vemula Kavyasree law

7. 96 Annie Thomas Unaffiliated
97 Tata Institute of Social Sciences Health
98 Co-editor Insaf Bulletin Current events commentary
99 Deeptha Rao Advocate
100 Sujata Gothoskar Research and activism
101 Anita Dumra Retired
102 Praavita Advocate
103 Venkatesh Athreya Economist and social activist
104 P B Noorani Business
105 George Mathikarsy Writer
106 Ashwin Viswanathan Science/Biology
107 Jayalakshmi Mukund Psychotherapist
108 Internet Freedom Foundation Digital and Human Rights
109 Anuradha Banerji Saheli
110 Radha Holla Nutrition and conflicts of interest
111 Saheli Women's Resource Centre -
112 Aayushi Bengani Academics - Social Sciences
113 Akash Bhattacharya Azim Premji University
114 Ashima Roy Chowdhury Feminist activist with SAHELI
115 Imrana Qadeer public health professional
116 Internet Freedom Foundation Digital Rights
117 Vanitha Medappa Teacher
118 Harsh VR Advocate
119 India Bound Risk analyst
120 Anubha Rastogi Lawyer, Mumbai
121 Milton Pereira Service
122 Shreya Law
123 Ambedkar ekta mission Punjab senior vice president
124 Rucha Mehta Education and Design
125 Dr. Manisha Israni-Jiang Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics
126 Ali Akbar Mehta Artist and cultural theorist
127 Anisul Azam Khan IT
128 Joy sengupta Film/ Theatre / Media
129 Gouranga Mohapatra
Jana Swasthya Abhijan/Bharat Gyan
Vigyan Samity
130 Devika Lawyer

8. 131 Sukla Sen Peace Activist
132 Dilip Hota Social activity
133 Forum Against oppression of women feminist activist
134 SURASRI Chaudhuri
Vivekananda college Thakurpukur
Kolkata
135 Virginia Saldanha Indian Christian Women's Movement
136 Suchita ShAh Legal
137 A.J. Jawad Lawyer
138 Sujata Gothoskar Research and activism
139 Marcia DCunha Womens Welfare
140 ICWM Indian Christian Women Movement Independent
141 ICWM Social work
142 Swarupa Rani Gender ,gender based Violence
143 Mini Mathew Lawyer
144 Swathi Researcher
145 Henri Lawyer
146 Geetha Devarajan Advocate
147 Ranjana Kanhere Social work
148 Gayatri Singh , Working People’s Charter,PUCL Advocate
149 R. Vaigai Lawyer
150 Ira Ghosh Concerned citizen
151 Muthamma B.Devaya Disability Rights
152 Anna Mathew Advocate
153 Gayatri Khandhadai Lawyer
154 Elizabeth Seshadri Lawyer
155 Federation of Rainbow Warriors Communities, nature and justice
156 Eldred Tellis Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment
157 Earthan Raastoff Philosopher
158 Nandita Khan Social activist
159 Center for Promoting Democracy
Deepening democracy, participatory
urban governence, housing and basic
services
160 Anjali Sharma Advocate
161 Advocate law
162 Neil Jack D’silva Education
163 Dr. Frederick J de Souza Advocate, Social worker

9. 164 Gandimathi Alagar Researcher
165 Nelita Coelho Tour operator
166 Raissa Coutinho Housewife
167 Aparajita Sinha Lawyer
168 Aatreyee Sen Activist
169 Nandini Rao Women's rights
170 Lazarus Fernandes Retired
171 Vandana Kool Doctor
172 Divya Balagopal Law
173 Nidhin Sasi IT
174
Campaign against racism and discrimination
India Social inclusion
175 K. Viswambharan Natural Health & Farming
176 Obada Safi Labour Law
177 Oieshi Saha Academia
178 Swathanthra Malayalam Computing
Language Computing, Digital Rights,
FOSS
179 Anivar Aravind Public Interest Technologist
180 Md Rehaan Danish
Associate Reasearcher, Quill
Foundation, 5th year Law Student
181 Francis Thattill Politics
182 Gayathri Home maker
183 Sagari R Ramdas Food Sovereignty Alliance , India
184 Dr. Sylvia Karpagam Public health doctor