Introduction

The 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks exposed serious gaps in India’s intelligence and security apparatus. One of the key failures identified was the inability of agencies to connect scattered pieces of information lying across multiple databases. In response, the State turned to technology as a solution, leading to the creation of the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)—a platform meant to integrate disparate data sources for faster and more effective counter-terrorism. What began as a tool to fix coordination failures has, over time, evolved into something far more expansive and troubling. Today, NATGRID represents not just a security architecture, but the backbone of a new form of population-scale digital surveillance, raising profound questions about privacy, constitutionalism, and the future of democratic governance in India.

What Exactly Is NATGRID?

NATGRID is designed as a centralised intelligence-sharing platform that allows authorised security and intelligence agencies to query multiple databases through a single interface.

• It links data related to:

  • Identity records

  • Travel and immigration

  • Telecom usage

  • Financial transactions

  • Property and asset ownership

  • Movement and other behavioural traces

• Conceptually, it functions as a “middleware” or a search engine for intelligence agencies, enabling them to pull together fragments of information scattered across numerous government and private databases.

• Instead of each agency separately approaching different data holders, NATGRID creates a unified gateway to query them all at once.

In theory, this promises efficiency and faster response to security threats. In practice, it concentrates unprecedented informational power in the hands of the executive.

Expansion and Recent Developments

• NATGRID was initially conceived as a tool accessible only to a small set of central intelligence and security agencies.

• Over time, its access base has expanded to include:

  • State police forces

  • Senior-level officers across various security and investigative bodies

• Its scale of usage has grown dramatically, with:

  • Tens of thousands of queries reportedly being processed every month

• Reports also indicate that NATGRID is being integrated with the National Population Register (NPR), which contains:

  • Demographic details

  • Household-level information of residents

• This integration marks a qualitative leap—from tracking specific threats to potentially mapping the entire population.

A Qualitative Shift in the Nature of Surveillance

• Traditional surveillance systems focused on:

  • Specific suspects

  • Particular events or investigations

• NATGRID, combined with advances in:

  • Artificial intelligence

  • Machine learning

  • Facial recognition

  • “Entity resolution” technologies
    has transformed this model.

• Surveillance now increasingly operates through:

  • Algorithmic inference

  • Pattern detection

  • Automated linking of fragmented data points

• The system no longer needs prior human suspicion in the classical sense. Instead:

  • Individuals can be flagged because an algorithm finds their data “interesting” or “anomalous”.

• This marks a transition from targeted surveillance to population-scale, predictive surveillance.

Concerns

Absence of Statutory Backing

• NATGRID has been operationalised primarily through executive orders, not through a comprehensive law debated and passed by Parliament.

• This means:

  • There is no clear legislative definition of its scope, limits, or safeguards

  • Citizens have no transparent, legally guaranteed protections against misuse

Lack of Independent Oversight

• There is:

  • No robust parliamentary oversight mechanism

  • No independent judicial authorisation required for most queries

  • No public reporting on how often, why, and against whom the system is used

• This creates a system of surveillance that is largely self-authorising and self-policing.

Risk of Profiling and Bias

• Algorithms are not neutral.

• When fed with biased data or deployed in a biased society, they can:

  • Reinforce existing prejudices related to religion, caste, region, or class

  • Systematically target already marginalised communities

• Profiling can become automated, scaled, and far harder to challenge.

False Positives and Their Human Cost

• Large data systems inevitably produce:

  • Errors in matching

  • Incorrect linkages between people, devices, and transactions

• In a criminal justice system, even a small error rate can:

  • Ruin lives

  • Lead to harassment, detention, or long legal battles

• The burden of these mistakes usually falls on:

  • The poor

  • The socially vulnerable

  • Those with least access to legal remedies

Normalisation of Surveillance

• As NATGRID becomes embedded in everyday governance, intrusive data access:

  • Stops being an exceptional measure

  • Becomes routine administrative practice

• The line between:

  • Security

  • Governance

  • Social control
    begins to blur.

Democratic and Constitutional Implications

• The Supreme Court’s judgment in Puttaswamy (2017) recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right.

• A system like NATGRID, operating without:

  • Clear law

  • Narrow purpose limitation

  • Strong oversight
    directly undermines this constitutional guarantee.

• It also weakens:

  • Due process

  • The principle of proportionality

  • Accountability of the executive

• Power shifts decisively towards the State, encouraging:

  • A culture of suspicion

  • Data-driven policing without sufficient evidentiary discipline

• Instead of strengthening investigation, such systems risk replacing careful police work with automated suspicion.

From Counter-Terror Tool to Infrastructure of Control

NATGRID today is no longer just a platform for preventing terrorism. It has quietly become a foundational infrastructure for digital authoritarianism, where:

• The State can see more and more

• Citizens can see less and less about how they are being watched

• Decisions affecting liberty can be shaped by opaque algorithms and secret queries

History shows that intelligence failures are rarely solved by simply collecting more data. More often, they are problems of:

• Analysis

• Coordination

• Accountability

• Professional competence

Mass data accumulation without institutional reform merely reproduces these failures at a much larger and more dangerous scale.

The Way Forward

• India urgently needs a clear statutory framework governing intelligence databases and surveillance platforms like NATGRID.

• This framework must:

  • Be enacted by Parliament, not executive fiat

  • Clearly define purpose, scope, and limits

• Strong parliamentary and judicial oversight must be built in:

  • Independent authorisation

  • Audit mechanisms

  • Remedies for citizens

• Surveillance must be strictly limited by:

  • Necessity

  • Proportionality

  • Accountability

• Most importantly, the focus must shift from:

  • Mass, suspicionless data accumulation

  • To professional, evidence-based, human-led investigation

Conclusion

NATGRID was born out of a genuine desire to prevent another 26/11. But in its current form, it represents a dangerous concentration of informational power without democratic control. A society does not become safer merely by watching everyone all the time. Real security lies in strong institutions, accountable policing, and respect for constitutional freedoms. Without transparency, law, and oversight, systems like NATGRID do not protect democracy—they slowly hollow it out from within.