CENTRE REJECTS CLAIMS OF MASS BIOMETRIC PROFILING OF NEET PROTESTERS, DENIES CRIMINAL-DATABASE ENROLMENT
October 9, 2026
The Union government has rejected broad allegations that protesters involved in demonstrations against the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) were being subjected to biometric enrolment in a criminal database, pushing back against claims surrounding the collection and use of personal data during protests.
The government’s response addresses concerns over whether individuals participating in demonstrations were being systematically identified and their biometric information recorded for criminal-database purposes. It has rejected the sweeping claims, distinguishing allegations of mass enrolment from the actions that authorities may legally undertake in specific circumstances.
The controversy highlights wider concerns over the use of biometric identification and personal information by law enforcement agencies, particularly when individuals are involved in protests. Critics have repeatedly raised questions about privacy safeguards, the scope of police powers and the possibility that personal data collected for identification could be used for broader surveillance.
India’s Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 provides a legal framework for collecting specified measurements and identification records from certain categories of people for criminal investigation and identification. The law covers information such as fingerprints, photographs and other prescribed measurements, subject to its provisions and applicable rules.
The distinction between lawful identification procedures and alleged blanket enrolment is central to the dispute. Participation in a protest does not, by itself, establish criminal wrongdoing, and claims concerning the collection or storage of protesters’ biometric information have raised questions about the legal basis, purpose and safeguards governing such actions.
The issue also underscores the continuing debate over how authorities can maintain public order and investigate alleged offences while protecting citizens’ privacy and their right to participate in peaceful demonstrations.
The government’s rejection of the omnibus allegations places the focus on the specific evidence behind claims of biometric enrolment, the legal authority under which any information was collected and whether established procedures were followed.
