Delhi High Court Hears Petition Against Surveillance of Protesters at Jantar Mantar

The Delhi High Court conducted detailed hearings on Friday regarding a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged surveillance of protesters at Jantar Mantar. The petitioner argued that the use of videography and facial recognition technology infringes on the fundamental right to privacy. In contrast, the central government defended the use of videography as a legitimate measure for maintaining public order. After hearing arguments from both sides, the bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia postponed further hearings to Monday. Senior advocate Nandita Rao, representing the petitioner, requested the issuance of notices and contended that the issues raised in the petition are distinct from other pending cases related to protests on July 20.

Rao referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in the K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, asserting that citizens retain the right to privacy even while participating in public protests. She emphasized that any restrictions on this right must meet constitutional validity, legitimate state purpose, and proportionality requirements. Rao stated, "The law in the Puttaswamy case is very clear. In a democratic setup, even during protests in public spaces, the right to privacy exists. Restrictions can only be imposed if the state meets the triad test." She noted that this petition specifically pertains to police surveillance and was filed prior to the police action on July 20.

She highlighted that the petition mentions the alleged monitoring of young protesters aged 16 to 20 and cited a news report claiming that police vans were conducting live facial recognition. According to Rao, the alleged use of facial recognition technology without adequate security measures poses a risk of criminalizing peaceful democratic participation. She argued that while the state may record protests for legitimate purposes, there is no legal framework governing the collection, storage, and use of such data.

“What are we asking for? Establish a legal framework. Protect us from misuse. Even phone tapping has a protocol,” Rao stated, adding that there is no data protection mechanism governing such recordings.

Senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, who appeared in related cases, supported Rao's arguments, stating that similar issues regarding surveillance and privacy had not been raised in previous petitions. On behalf of the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised initial objections and opposed the issuance of notices.