Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18986795 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- The growing reliance on predictive analytics and algorithmic tools in policing marks a profound shift in the way suspicion is formed and acted upon within criminal justice systems. In India, this transformation has unfolded rapidly, propelled by digitisation drives, integrated crime databases, and the adoption of technologies such as facial recognition, crime mapping dashboards, and AI assisted surveillance. Although these innovations are often defended on grounds of efficiency and crime prevention, their expanding role raises pressing constitutional questions, especially when algorithmic outputs begin to shape, or even replace, individualized suspicion. This paper explores the idea of "algorithmic suspicion" and considers its implications for due process and police discretion under the Indian Constitution. It argues that suspicion generated by opaque, data driven systems presents unique challenges to the constitutional guarantees of fairness, non arbitrariness, and accountability enshrined in Articles 14 and 21. Drawing on Indian constitutional doctrine, criminal procedure standards, and comparative experiences from the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union, the analysis shows how predictive policing risks converting statistical correlations into legal justifications without the procedural safeguards that due process demands. Through case studies of predictive and algorithmic policing initiatives in India including facial recognition deployments, state level analytics platforms, and national data infrastructures as the paper identifies recurring concerns: opacity in decision making, embedded bias, self reinforcing feedback loops, and weak regulatory oversight. It concludes by outlining a constitutional reform framework built on transparency, human oversight, auditability, and robust judicial review. Ultimately, the paper contends that while technology can support policing, it must not be allowed to redefine the legal meaning of suspicion or erode consti...