Facial Recognition in Public Places: Is It In Compliance With Article 21

It is in the nature of human being to do socialize with other, find and explore new things and  new people to interact and learn more about others and their selves as well, To be more  practical and more effective in their life. ‘It would somewhat be beneficiary for people in  India as they got their fundamental right provided them by the Constitution Of India which is  absolute and imposed over whole of India’. To validate the sentence, there is a landmark case  of “keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala1” whose finding was that no power can ever change,  amend or eradicate the constitution’s basic structure as it is the soul of the constitution which  cannot be played with. In this sense citizens are given some Fundamental Rights Mentioned  in Part III2 of the Constitution of India. One of them which is of Article 21 which ensures the  protection of life and liberty. This article is very wase in its own way as it got interpretated by  courts many times which add more deeper meaning to this Article in many ways such as:- 

• Right to Medical Care3
• Right to Food4
• Right to Livelihood 5
• Right to Shelter6
• Right to Education7
• Right to Healthy Environment8
• Right to Privacy9

These are some of the rights which got interpretated by the courts in leading time to secure  more meaning and give people their Fundamental Right of life and liberty in more precise  and effective way. 

Now to go even more deeper, we have to understand the depth of certain right which is most  important part of a person’s personal liberty and which is most controversial and mandatory  which is the Right To Privacy. 

Firstly, Understand what does right to privacy include and what does it impliedly means acc.  to the right given which say it as a person’s right to be private and alone while securing and  not disclosing its data or information to anyone but this is not absolute and if state deems fit  can limit it for security and public order. 

So does facial recognition in public places comes under this as it is people’s right to be a  private person? 

Any use of this kind of facility of facial recognition by any source (for ex. CCTV, Camera,  Face Lock, Data entry machine, etc.) must be compatible in three different type of area  which are: legality (which is backed by law), legitimate aim (example-public safety,  morality, order), and proportionality (least intrusive means with safeguards).  So facial recognition of individual entity without consent of his does not come under these  three area which enable unchecked tracking without consent or oversight of the person10. 

It is not the mistake of the people that they roam in the society with their faces always  unguarded and free of worries but what if that instance of free will and liberty were captured  in pictures and instantly available across the world in digital form? And what if a computer in  some unknown place could identify or recognize the faces in those picture to create a separate  database a fully indexed catalogue of life with full details and contents of his life, which is  now stored in time which holds his life and even without his consent. To do all this in this  generation is easily possible with all the resources available so is it infringement of people’s  right to privacy or not or does this comes under security and public order at the state’s end11. 

India is a vast country with heavy population and increasing number of crime rate  simultaneously as it is also a diverse country which follows secularism in following every  religion and to support all that people have there Fundamental rights, including all this India  is also an developing country which as uplifted in many sectors like industry, agriculture,  technology, etc. which eventually introduced Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS)  which automatically detects peoples face and identity whose main usage is for police officials  or civil servants to find out and identity criminals whose they lost sight of, but this system  became a challenge to fundamental democracy as right to privacy is intrinsic and inalienable  as per the findings of K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India12.  

In this, System has become a clear violation of the privacy and personal liberty of people who  are innocent and people’s data and identity with their information are being stored in some  distinct place, so for this court held three perpetual tests13 which are 

▪ Legality 

This indicated that the action of state must be authorized by some clear and enforceable law  at the time of his action and it cannot be on some executive discretion. The work should be  legal and the source as well as the procedure and way to reach as well. 

▪ Legitimate Aim 

That the action of state to capture someone should have a valid and reasonable aim which at  upmost importance for public safety and public order. State should have proof and have a aim  of motive in good faith which is valid at the time of action committed for public majority ,  welfare and security for this action to comply. 

▪ Proportionality  

The state should have a limit to it interference with privacy which should be in proportion  with legal aim for its capturing and recording the information. The way and procedure and  limit if capturing should not exceed the expected efforts as per the aim and should not over  exceed or over use of this power to capture more than what is required which is the aim14. 

Therefore these test clarify whether the action of Facial Recognition In Public Spaces by the  state is a clear violation of Fundamental right of the citizen or not as the action of the state  should match all these three test and clear all three to validate their reasons for the action  committed by them. In somewhat this evolution might also be dangerous for public as at the  end this system is digital and machinery and any malfunction of improper retrieval of data  might cause an innocent person as guilty and punishable so it is of the state’s duty to ensure  this system work properly and in the benefit of the larger good. 

Conclusion  

So at the end this is clear that facial recognition in public places without their consent is not  enforceable in law which means it is an infringement of people’s right to privacy of being a  private person and can be punishable but this is might happen in some cases which has been explained so therefore, Facial Recognition in Public is not in compliance with Article 21  except if it a matter of public good ,welfare , morality , tranquillity or security.  

Reference(S): 

▪ Constitution of India, 1950 

▪ AIR 1973 

▪ AIR 1989 

▪ AIR 2017 

▪ AIR 1992 

▪ AIR 2001 

▪ Regulating Facial Recognition Technology in India’(Drishti IAS, 3 july’24) 

▪ India’s Digital Dilemma: Reconciling Facial Recognition Security with the  Constitutional Right to Privacy” 

▪ In the Face of Danger: Facial Recognition and the Limits of Privacy Law’ Vol. 120, No. 7  (May, 2007) 

▪ JSTOR 

▪ MANUPATRA 

▪ Google Schooler 

▪ Lexis Nexis 

▪ Indian Kanoon

1 Keshvanand Bharti v State of Kerala [1973] AIR 4 SCC 225 

2 Constitution of India 1950 

3 Parmanand Katara v Union of India [AIR 1989] SCR 3 997 

4 People’s Union for Civil Liberties(PUCL) v Union of India[1997] 1 SCC 301 

5 Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation [1986] SC 180 

6 Shantisar Builders v Narayan Khimal Totame [AIR 1990] SC 630 

7 Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka [AIR 1992] 3 SCC 666 

8 Murali S. Deora v Union of India [AIR 2001] 8 SCC 765 

9 K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India [AIR 2017] 10 SCC 1

10 ET, ‘Regulating Facial Recognition Technology in India’(Drishti IAS, 3 july’24) https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/regulating-facial-recognition-technology-in india#:~:text=These%20principles%20include%20legality(adherence%20to%20existing%20laws)%20%2C%20 reasonability(proportionality%20to%20the%20objective)%2C%20and%20proportionality(balancing%20the%2 0need%20for%20security%20with%20individual%20rights) accessed on 12th december’25 

11 The Harvard Law Review Association, ‘In the Face of Danger: Facial Recognition and the Limits of Privacy Law’  Vol. 120, No. 7 (May, 2007) JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/40042639 accessed on 12th December’25

12 [AIR 2017] 10 SCC 1 

13 MKS, “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): Case Summary” (8th August 2025)  https://mdulawpapers.in/justice-k-s-puttaswamy-retd-v-union-of-india/ accessed on 12th December’2025

14 Rohan Yadav and Akshat Pundir, “India’s Digital Dilemma: Reconciling Facial Recognition Security with the  Constitutional Right to Privacy” https://clt.nliu.ac.in/?p=1276 accessed on 12th december’25