Home  /  Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  /  Section 12

Section 12: Taking measurements and photographs, etc., of persons against whom order under section 10 is made

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1989
Section 11 All 23 Sections of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 13

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 12

Section 12 authorizes the compulsory taking of measurements, fingerprints, and photographs of persons subjected to Section 10 externment orders, sanctioning the use of all necessary physical force against resistance and establishing a statutory deeming fiction equating refusal to criminal obstruction under Section 186 IPC / Section 221 BNS.

  • Compulsory Identification Profiling (Section 12(1)): Every person against whom an externment order has been made under Section 10 is statutorily obligated, when required by the Special Court, to allow his measurements, physical attributes, and photographs to be taken by a police officer.
  • Statutory Authorization of Necessary Force (Section 12(2)): Where an externed person resists or refuses to allow his measurements or photographs to be recorded, the statute confers express authority upon the police to 'use all means necessary' to secure the identification data, validating physical restraint.
  • Deeming Fiction of Criminal Obstruction (Section 12(3)): Any resistance or refusal is statutorily deemed to constitute an offence under Section 186 of the IPC (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) [now Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023], eliminating the need for independent proof of physical impediment.
  • Interplay with Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022: Must be read in alignment with the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 and Rules, which govern modern digital biometric captures, iris scans, and retention limits, subject to constitutional privacy protections under Article 21.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808: An eleven-judge Constitution Bench held that taking fingerprint impressions, physical measurements, handwriting specimens, or photographs of an accused does not infringe the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), as they constitute non-testimonial identification evidence.
  • Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. (2019) 8 SCC 1: The Supreme Court recognized that judicial orders directing an individual to furnish physical identification material, including voice samples, are permissible under Article 21 when authorized by statute and proportionate to crime prevention.
  • K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1: The nine-judge bench established that state collection and storage of biometric data must satisfy the triple test of legality, legitimate state objective, and proportionality, ensuring that biometric profiling under Section 12 does not lead to disproportionate surveillance.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Counsel should advise clients subjected to an externment order to comply with identification requests under Section 12, as refusal directly invites a prosecution under Section 186 IPC / Section 221 BNS. However, ensure that the measurements taken are restricted strictly to those authorized by the Special Court's order and the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. Object if the police attempt unauthorized digital data harvesting or dissemination of photographs to the public media, which violates the right to privacy under Puttaswamy.

Section 11 All 23 Sections of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 13