top of page

By:

Sagari Gupta

24 March 2026 at 7:46:04 pm

India’s Digital Footprint Is No Longer a Choice

India’s digital economy has made personal data unavoidable. The harder task is ensuring that citizens retain meaningful control over the trails they leave behind. In August this year, the Unified Payments Interface processed about 24.5 billion transactions worth nearly Rs. 29.8 lakh crore, according to data from the National Payments Corporation of India. Aadhaar’s authentication system recorded more than 17,759 crore transactions in FY2025-26, according to UIDAI’s dashboard. Behind these...

India’s Digital Footprint Is No Longer a Choice

India’s digital economy has made personal data unavoidable. The harder task is ensuring that citizens retain meaningful control over the trails they leave behind. In August this year, the Unified Payments Interface processed about 24.5 billion transactions worth nearly Rs. 29.8 lakh crore, according to data from the National Payments Corporation of India. Aadhaar’s authentication system recorded more than 17,759 crore transactions in FY2025-26, according to UIDAI’s dashboard. Behind these numbers sits a question Indian policy has yet to answer clearly: what happens to the data these systems generate, and who controls it? The most pressing privacy question in India today is not what people choose to post online. It is what they are required to leave behind to take part in everyday life. A UPI payment leaves a transaction trail. A loan application generates financial records. A food-delivery order records your address and buying habits. A cab ride shows where you work and when you travel. A social-media post adds something more personal: what you think, like, fear or believe. Individually, these fragments look harmless. Together, they can describe a remarkably detailed version of a person’s life. Orwellian Society This is not digital technology invading a society that was once offline. It is a society in which digital systems have become part of ordinary economic life. For a software professional, deleting social media may be an inconvenience. For a domestic worker paid through a bank account, a student applying for a scholarship or a pensioner completing an identity check, opting out is not a workable choice. Consider an ordinary Saturday. You check the weather, search for a medicine, order groceries, pay through UPI, book a cab and make an online purchase. No single action tells a complete story. Together, they reveal your location, spending patterns, household composition, health concerns and daily routine. Artificial intelligence changes what this data means, because machine systems are increasingly good at connecting fragments that once sat in separate databases. The concern is not that an AI system knows what you searched for once. It is that automated systems can identify patterns across millions of ordinary interactions that, taken individually, meant little. The problem is also one of asymmetry. The individual usually sees only the service being offered; the organisation sees the accumulated information behind it. A single transaction may be trivial, but millions of such transactions can become commercially or administratively valuable when linked and analysed. That makes data different from many other commodities. Once information has been copied, combined or used to build a profile, the original individual may have little visibility into its subsequent journey. The question is therefore not simply who collected the data, but who can combine it, infer from it and act upon those inferences. The public debate on AI scraping is often too simple. Not every online interaction is pulled into an AI model, and not every company holds every piece of a person’s digital life. Collection depends on the platform, its policies, its technical architecture and the applicable law. But the gap is real: the capacity to analyse vast volumes of information is growing faster than most people’s understanding of where their information goes. A PwC India survey found that 56 percent of consumers did not know their rights over personal data, while 70 percent said privacy policies were difficult to understand. When a person does not understand what they are agreeing to, consent risks becoming a formality rather than a genuine choice. There is also a distinction between privacy and secrecy. A person may have nothing embarrassing to hide and still reasonably object to a detailed record of their movements, purchases and associations being assembled without meaningful control. Privacy is less about having something to conceal than about retaining a degree of agency over one’s own life. A Right on Paper The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 gives individuals rights to correct and erase personal data, subject to the conditions and exceptions set out in the law. The government notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules in November 2025, with provisions coming into force in phases. On paper, this changes the relationship between citizens and the organisations that hold their data. In practice, most people do not think in terms of “Data Principal” or “Data Fiduciary” when an app asks for access to their information. They think about whether the app will still work if they say no. That is the test that decides whether a data-protection law functions on the ground. A small retailer selling online may not fully understand the compliance requirements. An elderly customer faces a long privacy notice before completing a routine transaction. A young user accepts an app’s terms because refusing means losing access to a service that friends or employers already use. A right that exists on paper does not guarantee a person’s ability to exercise it. The ability to protect personal data is not distributed evenly. A high-income professional can pay for privacy-focused software, encrypted communication and legal advice. Someone on a smaller income uses whichever free application is available. The same divide applies to time. A person who understands technology can adjust permissions and request deletion. A person working two jobs may accept an app’s terms because reading a 30-page privacy notice at 11 p.m. is hardly realistic. This produces an uneven outcome. The people with the strongest ability to protect their data are often the same people with the clearest sense of what is being collected. Those with fewer resources tend to generate more data while having less power to question how it is used. This is why treating “going offline” as the solution has limited use in India. Cash does not cover every digital transaction. A basic phone does not replace every digital service. Deleting a social-media account does not erase bank or government records. Refusing every digital platform carries its own economic cost, particularly for people who depend on digital payments for income. The realistic goal is not disappearance. It is control. India’s digital economy should not be measured only by payment volumes or platform reach. It should also be measured by whether people understand the exchange taking place underneath that convenience. Regulators should track whether a person can find out what a service holds about them, correct inaccurate information, delete data that is no longer necessary and withdraw consent without clicking through several layers of settings. The sharper test is what happens when data collected for one purpose becomes useful for another. Rising Stakes The stakes will rise as India’s digital infrastructure becomes more deeply embedded in public services, finance and commerce. The country has built impressive systems for moving money and verifying identity; the next challenge is to build equally credible systems for limiting what can be inferred from the information those systems generate. The next phase of India’s privacy debate should move past the idea of digital disappearance, because most people have no practical way to leave the systems through which they earn, pay, borrow, travel, study and access public services. The more useful task is making those systems answerable to the people whose lives they record. The measure of digital freedom is not whether a citizen leaves no trace. It is whether they have a say over where that trace leads. (The writer is an independent public policy researcher. Views personal.)

DNA 3D Molecular Photofitting: Frontier in Criminal Identification

Writer: Dr. Keshav Kumar
Dr. Keshav Kumar
Feb 3, 2025
3 min read
DNA 3D Molecular Photofitting

The foolproof identification of an accused in undetected criminal cases remains a significant challenge for investigating officers. Traditionally, under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, identification relied on fingerprints, footprints, and photographs. While these methods played a crucial role in the past, their susceptibility to manipulation necessitated the adoption of more advanced identification techniques. Recognizing this need, the Government of India repealed the 1920 Act in 2022 and introduced the Criminal Procedure Identification Act, 2022.


This new Act represents a monumental leap in forensic identification by incorporating biological samples, behavioral attributes (such as signature and handwriting), and the examination of blood, semen, hair, swabs, and DNA analysis. For the first time in Indian legal history, DNA analysis was formally recognized as a means of identification through legislation. Although the first judicial recognition of DNA evidence in India occurred in Kunhiraman v. Manoj (1991) in the Kerala High Court, it was only with the enactment of the 2022 Act that DNA analysis received statutory legitimacy.


In cold and undetected cases where body fluid evidence is available but the accused is at large, DNA analysis can be instrumental in identification, provided a suspect is identified for comparison. Modern DNA technology has progressed to the extent that even a microscopic biological sample, as small as one picogram, can yield significant forensic insights. In the United States, forensic experts have developed 2D facial reconstruction from DNA, offering a groundbreaking method to aid investigations, which is also called Snapshot DNA Analysis, developed by Parabon NanoLabs, INC www.parabon-nanolabs.com.


Paraben Corporation, a U.S.-based digital forensics company, has pioneered advancements in forensic DNA technology, particularly in DNA-based suspect identification. Their innovative approach involves generating a 2D facial print from a DNA sample, assisting law enforcement in reconstructing facial features. By analyzing genetic markers linked to skin tone, hair color, and facial structure, Paraben’s technology translates raw DNA data into a detailed 2D representation of an individual's face. This advancement is particularly beneficial in cases where photographic evidence or eyewitness accounts are unavailable. In India, there could be many such cases.


With the advent of 3D printing technology, forensic DNA analysis has reached new heights over 2D DNA printing. 3D Molecular Photofitting is an advanced forensic technique that reconstructs a person’s facial features using DNA evidence. By analyzing genetic markers associated with traits such as skin tone, eye color, hair color, and facial structure, forensic experts can generate a predictive 3D model of an individual’s face. The DNA Technology is under trial phases developed by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Centre for Biotechnology, Troy, NY, USA.


This cutting-edge technique integrates genomics, bioinformatics, and AI-driven modelling, significantly enhancing suspect identification, especially in cold cases. The technology offers a promising solution for cases where conventional methods fail, aiding law enforcement in suspect identification with unprecedented accuracy and precision in the case of Saif Ali Khan.


While these emerging DNA technologies hold immense potential, they are still in their incipient stages and require further refinement. The cost factor remains a hurdle, but advancements in forensic science are making these methods more accessible. For instance, which once took months to develop a DNA profile, can now generate results in just 90 minutes through RapidHit Technology developed by Thermofisher. It’s available with Gujarat and Odisha FSL.


Law enforcement agencies must harness these technological advancements to ensure swift and effective justice delivery. DNA-based facial reconstruction can be a game-changer in cases where CCTV footage-based facial matching is disputed or where traditional forensic methods fail to yield results.


While DNA 3D Molecular Photofitting presents promising opportunities for forensic science, its implementation must be accompanied by stringent ethical guidelines and privacy safeguards. Concerns surrounding genetic profiling, data security, and potential misuse necessitate robust regulation and oversight to ensure responsible and ethical usage.


As forensic science evolves at a rapid pace, the integration of advanced DNA-based technologies promises to transform criminal investigations, offering a level of clarity that has often eluded law enforcement. These innovations could eradicate the uncertainties that have historically clouded the search for justice, speeding up investigations and infusing the courtroom with a new standard of scientific rigor. The future of forensic identification lies in harnessing these breakthroughs to unite the precision of science with the intricacies of the legal system. It’s time to place more science at the heart of the courtroom, where justice meets technology.


(The author is a retired IPS officer and forensic consultant to the Assam government. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page