The Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed concerns over the long-standing practice of recording students' birthmarks and physical identification marks on educational certificates, emphasizing the need for modern alternatives that uphold personal privacy.
Court Hearing on PIL
Hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate B Naga Satwik, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice N Jayasurya on Monday issued notices to the principal secretary of school education, the commissioner of school education, and the Directorate of Government Examinations. The court directed these authorities to file detailed counter-affidavits explaining the rationale behind the practice and the procedures being followed.
Petitioner's Argument
The petitioner argued that recording moles, birthmarks, and other physical features for identity verification violates the constitutional right to privacy. He sought a declaration that the practice is unconstitutional and illegal.
Government's Defense
Defending the policy, government counsel G. Ramachandra Rao informed the court that details of students' identification marks have been recorded for decades to help verify identity during examinations and certification processes. He stated that the system was introduced through government orders issued in 1969 and has remained in force ever since.
Court's Observations
However, the bench questioned whether such methods remain relevant in the modern era, noting that birthmarks and moles can now be altered or removed through medical procedures. The judges suggested that authorities examine alternative technologies, including biometric-based identification systems, to verify student identities more effectively.
The court also stressed that students should not be subjected to discomfort or embarrassment during the process of identifying physical marks. It further clarified that female staff members must be engaged whenever the identification of marks on girl students is required.
Next Steps
After directing the authorities to submit complete details on the matter, the court adjourned the case for further hearing.
