Question Description
The government is planning on establishing a large FRT network, known as Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), which aims at simplifying the process of CCTV monitoring by extracting facial biometrics from videos and matching it with the images housed in a database. Use of AFRS clearly abridges an individual’s exercise of his right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If someone protests against the government, even in a peaceful manner, this technology will enable the government to record the details of all such individuals, which might lead to individual targeting of protestors. This will cast a chilling effect on an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, and right to movement under Article 19. The use of this technology does not satisfy the threshold set up by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, even in public spaces. If this right is to be infringed, the government must show that its action is sanctioned by law, proportionate to the need for such interference, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As far as the legitimacy of AFRS is concerned, the IT Act of 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data, and contains rules for collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. But these are only applicable to “body corporates” and not to the government's use of biometric facial data. Such surveillance is also unethical as it requires the deployment of FRT on citizens without their consent. The distrust among civil society also stems from the fact that the government is trying to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation regarding its implications. In its landmark Aadhaar Judgment, while rejecting the justification of countering black money, as the basis for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar (India’s national biometric ID) with bank accounts, the Supreme Court had noted that imposing such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response. The Court’s concern here clearly shows how AFRS can be misused by the government. Furthermore, the accuracy of this technology is also unpredictable and might lead to unfavourable consequences in investigation. Therefore, deployment of AFRS without any legitimate checks and balances will lead to a function creep in India with serious repercussions. The government should constitute an efficient legal framework and an independent oversight committee to regulate the use of this technology, and also to bring about accountability within the framework of governance.Had it been the case that the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) would be working under the strict scrutiny of court and the access to available data could only be allowed after proof of a prima facie case, would the system still have been in violation of Right to Privacy?a)Any intrusion into the life of the common public is an infringement of right to privacy, hence even this will be a violation of right to privacy.b)Scrutiny of court can never be said to be violating the right to privacy, hence there won’t be any cause for violation of privacy.c)In that case the power would have had a cap of proportionality and legitimacy, and have met the threshold of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, so no violation.d)It could be termed as a violation of staggered right to privacy, since the privacy is being violated in a staggered manner.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The government is planning on establishing a large FRT network, known as Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), which aims at simplifying the process of CCTV monitoring by extracting facial biometrics from videos and matching it with the images housed in a database. Use of AFRS clearly abridges an individual’s exercise of his right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If someone protests against the government, even in a peaceful manner, this technology will enable the government to record the details of all such individuals, which might lead to individual targeting of protestors. This will cast a chilling effect on an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, and right to movement under Article 19. The use of this technology does not satisfy the threshold set up by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, even in public spaces. If this right is to be infringed, the government must show that its action is sanctioned by law, proportionate to the need for such interference, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As far as the legitimacy of AFRS is concerned, the IT Act of 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data, and contains rules for collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. But these are only applicable to “body corporates” and not to the government's use of biometric facial data. Such surveillance is also unethical as it requires the deployment of FRT on citizens without their consent. The distrust among civil society also stems from the fact that the government is trying to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation regarding its implications. In its landmark Aadhaar Judgment, while rejecting the justification of countering black money, as the basis for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar (India’s national biometric ID) with bank accounts, the Supreme Court had noted that imposing such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response. The Court’s concern here clearly shows how AFRS can be misused by the government. Furthermore, the accuracy of this technology is also unpredictable and might lead to unfavourable consequences in investigation. Therefore, deployment of AFRS without any legitimate checks and balances will lead to a function creep in India with serious repercussions. The government should constitute an efficient legal framework and an independent oversight committee to regulate the use of this technology, and also to bring about accountability within the framework of governance.Had it been the case that the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) would be working under the strict scrutiny of court and the access to available data could only be allowed after proof of a prima facie case, would the system still have been in violation of Right to Privacy?a)Any intrusion into the life of the common public is an infringement of right to privacy, hence even this will be a violation of right to privacy.b)Scrutiny of court can never be said to be violating the right to privacy, hence there won’t be any cause for violation of privacy.c)In that case the power would have had a cap of proportionality and legitimacy, and have met the threshold of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, so no violation.d)It could be termed as a violation of staggered right to privacy, since the privacy is being violated in a staggered manner.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The government is planning on establishing a large FRT network, known as Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), which aims at simplifying the process of CCTV monitoring by extracting facial biometrics from videos and matching it with the images housed in a database. Use of AFRS clearly abridges an individual’s exercise of his right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If someone protests against the government, even in a peaceful manner, this technology will enable the government to record the details of all such individuals, which might lead to individual targeting of protestors. This will cast a chilling effect on an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, and right to movement under Article 19. The use of this technology does not satisfy the threshold set up by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, even in public spaces. If this right is to be infringed, the government must show that its action is sanctioned by law, proportionate to the need for such interference, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As far as the legitimacy of AFRS is concerned, the IT Act of 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data, and contains rules for collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. But these are only applicable to “body corporates” and not to the government's use of biometric facial data. Such surveillance is also unethical as it requires the deployment of FRT on citizens without their consent. The distrust among civil society also stems from the fact that the government is trying to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation regarding its implications. In its landmark Aadhaar Judgment, while rejecting the justification of countering black money, as the basis for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar (India’s national biometric ID) with bank accounts, the Supreme Court had noted that imposing such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response. The Court’s concern here clearly shows how AFRS can be misused by the government. Furthermore, the accuracy of this technology is also unpredictable and might lead to unfavourable consequences in investigation. Therefore, deployment of AFRS without any legitimate checks and balances will lead to a function creep in India with serious repercussions. The government should constitute an efficient legal framework and an independent oversight committee to regulate the use of this technology, and also to bring about accountability within the framework of governance.Had it been the case that the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) would be working under the strict scrutiny of court and the access to available data could only be allowed after proof of a prima facie case, would the system still have been in violation of Right to Privacy?a)Any intrusion into the life of the common public is an infringement of right to privacy, hence even this will be a violation of right to privacy.b)Scrutiny of court can never be said to be violating the right to privacy, hence there won’t be any cause for violation of privacy.c)In that case the power would have had a cap of proportionality and legitimacy, and have met the threshold of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, so no violation.d)It could be termed as a violation of staggered right to privacy, since the privacy is being violated in a staggered manner.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The government is planning on establishing a large FRT network, known as Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), which aims at simplifying the process of CCTV monitoring by extracting facial biometrics from videos and matching it with the images housed in a database. Use of AFRS clearly abridges an individual’s exercise of his right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If someone protests against the government, even in a peaceful manner, this technology will enable the government to record the details of all such individuals, which might lead to individual targeting of protestors. This will cast a chilling effect on an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, and right to movement under Article 19. The use of this technology does not satisfy the threshold set up by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, even in public spaces. If this right is to be infringed, the government must show that its action is sanctioned by law, proportionate to the need for such interference, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As far as the legitimacy of AFRS is concerned, the IT Act of 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data, and contains rules for collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. But these are only applicable to “body corporates” and not to the government's use of biometric facial data. Such surveillance is also unethical as it requires the deployment of FRT on citizens without their consent. The distrust among civil society also stems from the fact that the government is trying to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation regarding its implications. In its landmark Aadhaar Judgment, while rejecting the justification of countering black money, as the basis for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar (India’s national biometric ID) with bank accounts, the Supreme Court had noted that imposing such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response. The Court’s concern here clearly shows how AFRS can be misused by the government. Furthermore, the accuracy of this technology is also unpredictable and might lead to unfavourable consequences in investigation. Therefore, deployment of AFRS without any legitimate checks and balances will lead to a function creep in India with serious repercussions. The government should constitute an efficient legal framework and an independent oversight committee to regulate the use of this technology, and also to bring about accountability within the framework of governance.Had it been the case that the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) would be working under the strict scrutiny of court and the access to available data could only be allowed after proof of a prima facie case, would the system still have been in violation of Right to Privacy?a)Any intrusion into the life of the common public is an infringement of right to privacy, hence even this will be a violation of right to privacy.b)Scrutiny of court can never be said to be violating the right to privacy, hence there won’t be any cause for violation of privacy.c)In that case the power would have had a cap of proportionality and legitimacy, and have met the threshold of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, so no violation.d)It could be termed as a violation of staggered right to privacy, since the privacy is being violated in a staggered manner.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The government is planning on establishing a large FRT network, known as Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), which aims at simplifying the process of CCTV monitoring by extracting facial biometrics from videos and matching it with the images housed in a database. Use of AFRS clearly abridges an individual’s exercise of his right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If someone protests against the government, even in a peaceful manner, this technology will enable the government to record the details of all such individuals, which might lead to individual targeting of protestors. This will cast a chilling effect on an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, and right to movement under Article 19. The use of this technology does not satisfy the threshold set up by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, even in public spaces. If this right is to be infringed, the government must show that its action is sanctioned by law, proportionate to the need for such interference, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As far as the legitimacy of AFRS is concerned, the IT Act of 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data, and contains rules for collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. But these are only applicable to “body corporates” and not to the government's use of biometric facial data. Such surveillance is also unethical as it requires the deployment of FRT on citizens without their consent. The distrust among civil society also stems from the fact that the government is trying to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation regarding its implications. In its landmark Aadhaar Judgment, while rejecting the justification of countering black money, as the basis for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar (India’s national biometric ID) with bank accounts, the Supreme Court had noted that imposing such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response. The Court’s concern here clearly shows how AFRS can be misused by the government. Furthermore, the accuracy of this technology is also unpredictable and might lead to unfavourable consequences in investigation. Therefore, deployment of AFRS without any legitimate checks and balances will lead to a function creep in India with serious repercussions. The government should constitute an efficient legal framework and an independent oversight committee to regulate the use of this technology, and also to bring about accountability within the framework of governance.Had it been the case that the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) would be working under the strict scrutiny of court and the access to available data could only be allowed after proof of a prima facie case, would the system still have been in violation of Right to Privacy?a)Any intrusion into the life of the common public is an infringement of right to privacy, hence even this will be a violation of right to privacy.b)Scrutiny of court can never be said to be violating the right to privacy, hence there won’t be any cause for violation of privacy.c)In that case the power would have had a cap of proportionality and legitimacy, and have met the threshold of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, so no violation.d)It could be termed as a violation of staggered right to privacy, since the privacy is being violated in a staggered manner.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The government is planning on establishing a large FRT network, known as Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), which aims at simplifying the process of CCTV monitoring by extracting facial biometrics from videos and matching it with the images housed in a database. Use of AFRS clearly abridges an individual’s exercise of his right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If someone protests against the government, even in a peaceful manner, this technology will enable the government to record the details of all such individuals, which might lead to individual targeting of protestors. This will cast a chilling effect on an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, and right to movement under Article 19. The use of this technology does not satisfy the threshold set up by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, even in public spaces. If this right is to be infringed, the government must show that its action is sanctioned by law, proportionate to the need for such interference, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As far as the legitimacy of AFRS is concerned, the IT Act of 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data, and contains rules for collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. But these are only applicable to “body corporates” and not to the government's use of biometric facial data. Such surveillance is also unethical as it requires the deployment of FRT on citizens without their consent. The distrust among civil society also stems from the fact that the government is trying to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation regarding its implications. In its landmark Aadhaar Judgment, while rejecting the justification of countering black money, as the basis for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar (India’s national biometric ID) with bank accounts, the Supreme Court had noted that imposing such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response. The Court’s concern here clearly shows how AFRS can be misused by the government. Furthermore, the accuracy of this technology is also unpredictable and might lead to unfavourable consequences in investigation. Therefore, deployment of AFRS without any legitimate checks and balances will lead to a function creep in India with serious repercussions. The government should constitute an efficient legal framework and an independent oversight committee to regulate the use of this technology, and also to bring about accountability within the framework of governance.Had it been the case that the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) would be working under the strict scrutiny of court and the access to available data could only be allowed after proof of a prima facie case, would the system still have been in violation of Right to Privacy?a)Any intrusion into the life of the common public is an infringement of right to privacy, hence even this will be a violation of right to privacy.b)Scrutiny of court can never be said to be violating the right to privacy, hence there won’t be any cause for violation of privacy.c)In that case the power would have had a cap of proportionality and legitimacy, and have met the threshold of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, so no violation.d)It could be termed as a violation of staggered right to privacy, since the privacy is being violated in a staggered manner.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The government is planning on establishing a large FRT network, known as Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), which aims at simplifying the process of CCTV monitoring by extracting facial biometrics from videos and matching it with the images housed in a database. Use of AFRS clearly abridges an individual’s exercise of his right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If someone protests against the government, even in a peaceful manner, this technology will enable the government to record the details of all such individuals, which might lead to individual targeting of protestors. This will cast a chilling effect on an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, and right to movement under Article 19. The use of this technology does not satisfy the threshold set up by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, even in public spaces. If this right is to be infringed, the government must show that its action is sanctioned by law, proportionate to the need for such interference, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As far as the legitimacy of AFRS is concerned, the IT Act of 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data, and contains rules for collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. But these are only applicable to “body corporates” and not to the government's use of biometric facial data. Such surveillance is also unethical as it requires the deployment of FRT on citizens without their consent. The distrust among civil society also stems from the fact that the government is trying to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation regarding its implications. In its landmark Aadhaar Judgment, while rejecting the justification of countering black money, as the basis for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar (India’s national biometric ID) with bank accounts, the Supreme Court had noted that imposing such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response. The Court’s concern here clearly shows how AFRS can be misused by the government. Furthermore, the accuracy of this technology is also unpredictable and might lead to unfavourable consequences in investigation. Therefore, deployment of AFRS without any legitimate checks and balances will lead to a function creep in India with serious repercussions. The government should constitute an efficient legal framework and an independent oversight committee to regulate the use of this technology, and also to bring about accountability within the framework of governance.Had it been the case that the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) would be working under the strict scrutiny of court and the access to available data could only be allowed after proof of a prima facie case, would the system still have been in violation of Right to Privacy?a)Any intrusion into the life of the common public is an infringement of right to privacy, hence even this will be a violation of right to privacy.b)Scrutiny of court can never be said to be violating the right to privacy, hence there won’t be any cause for violation of privacy.c)In that case the power would have had a cap of proportionality and legitimacy, and have met the threshold of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, so no violation.d)It could be termed as a violation of staggered right to privacy, since the privacy is being violated in a staggered manner.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The government is planning on establishing a large FRT network, known as Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), which aims at simplifying the process of CCTV monitoring by extracting facial biometrics from videos and matching it with the images housed in a database. Use of AFRS clearly abridges an individual’s exercise of his right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If someone protests against the government, even in a peaceful manner, this technology will enable the government to record the details of all such individuals, which might lead to individual targeting of protestors. This will cast a chilling effect on an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, and right to movement under Article 19. The use of this technology does not satisfy the threshold set up by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, even in public spaces. If this right is to be infringed, the government must show that its action is sanctioned by law, proportionate to the need for such interference, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As far as the legitimacy of AFRS is concerned, the IT Act of 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data, and contains rules for collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. But these are only applicable to “body corporates” and not to the government's use of biometric facial data. Such surveillance is also unethical as it requires the deployment of FRT on citizens without their consent. The distrust among civil society also stems from the fact that the government is trying to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation regarding its implications. In its landmark Aadhaar Judgment, while rejecting the justification of countering black money, as the basis for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar (India’s national biometric ID) with bank accounts, the Supreme Court had noted that imposing such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response. The Court’s concern here clearly shows how AFRS can be misused by the government. Furthermore, the accuracy of this technology is also unpredictable and might lead to unfavourable consequences in investigation. Therefore, deployment of AFRS without any legitimate checks and balances will lead to a function creep in India with serious repercussions. The government should constitute an efficient legal framework and an independent oversight committee to regulate the use of this technology, and also to bring about accountability within the framework of governance.Had it been the case that the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) would be working under the strict scrutiny of court and the access to available data could only be allowed after proof of a prima facie case, would the system still have been in violation of Right to Privacy?a)Any intrusion into the life of the common public is an infringement of right to privacy, hence even this will be a violation of right to privacy.b)Scrutiny of court can never be said to be violating the right to privacy, hence there won’t be any cause for violation of privacy.c)In that case the power would have had a cap of proportionality and legitimacy, and have met the threshold of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, so no violation.d)It could be termed as a violation of staggered right to privacy, since the privacy is being violated in a staggered manner.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The government is planning on establishing a large FRT network, known as Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS), which aims at simplifying the process of CCTV monitoring by extracting facial biometrics from videos and matching it with the images housed in a database. Use of AFRS clearly abridges an individual’s exercise of his right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. If someone protests against the government, even in a peaceful manner, this technology will enable the government to record the details of all such individuals, which might lead to individual targeting of protestors. This will cast a chilling effect on an individual’s freedom of speech and expression, right to protest, and right to movement under Article 19. The use of this technology does not satisfy the threshold set up by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, even in public spaces. If this right is to be infringed, the government must show that its action is sanctioned by law, proportionate to the need for such interference, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As far as the legitimacy of AFRS is concerned, the IT Act of 2000 classifies biometric data as sensitive personal data, and contains rules for collection, disclosure and sharing of such information. But these are only applicable to “body corporates” and not to the government's use of biometric facial data. Such surveillance is also unethical as it requires the deployment of FRT on citizens without their consent. The distrust among civil society also stems from the fact that the government is trying to set up this system without prior discussion or consultation regarding its implications. In its landmark Aadhaar Judgment, while rejecting the justification of countering black money, as the basis for mandatory linkage of Aadhaar (India’s national biometric ID) with bank accounts, the Supreme Court had noted that imposing such a restriction on the entire population, without any evidence of wrongdoing on their part, would constitute a disproportionate response. The Court’s concern here clearly shows how AFRS can be misused by the government. Furthermore, the accuracy of this technology is also unpredictable and might lead to unfavourable consequences in investigation. Therefore, deployment of AFRS without any legitimate checks and balances will lead to a function creep in India with serious repercussions. The government should constitute an efficient legal framework and an independent oversight committee to regulate the use of this technology, and also to bring about accountability within the framework of governance.Had it been the case that the Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) would be working under the strict scrutiny of court and the access to available data could only be allowed after proof of a prima facie case, would the system still have been in violation of Right to Privacy?a)Any intrusion into the life of the common public is an infringement of right to privacy, hence even this will be a violation of right to privacy.b)Scrutiny of court can never be said to be violating the right to privacy, hence there won’t be any cause for violation of privacy.c)In that case the power would have had a cap of proportionality and legitimacy, and have met the threshold of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, so no violation.d)It could be termed as a violation of staggered right to privacy, since the privacy is being violated in a staggered manner.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.