Jantar Mantar Protests: Delhi High Court Suggests Filing Fresh Plea On Police Surveillance After Examining SOPs, Data Protection Act

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (July 28) orally suggested the petitioner alleging "continuous surveillance" of peaceful protesters during their agitation against NEET paper leak at Jantar Mantar, to examine existing legal framework including statutory provisions and Standard Operating Procedures on the issue, and take a call if a fresh petition needs to be filed. 

A division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia made the oral observation while hearing a public interest litigation filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU) president Aishe Ghosh alleging that peaceful protesters at Jantar Mantar were subjected to continuous photography, videography and police monitoring.

When the matter was called the counsel appearing for the petitioner sought an adjourment, stating that the senior counsel was on her legs in another matter. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appearing for the Centre, said that the connected matters were coming upon on September 11.

At this stage the court orally said:

"We think some thinking should go on with petitioner to our suggestion made yesterday. Because there are provisions. There is an SOP issued by Delhi Police. There is Data Protection Act, Public Records Act…"

The ASG agreed with the Court's observation, submitting that the issue was governed by four judicial precedents.

The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the legality of the surveillance in the present proceedings but suggested that the petitioner first examine the statutory regime governing such measures.

"We are not adjudicating...We are only on some thinking which must go on with petitioners...in light of these statutory provisions and SOPs we can examine at that time. In general, not related to this incident…In view of these provisions, the SOPs issued by Delhi Police, Data protection Act, Public Records Act. All those provisions need to be gone into by them and then they can take a call whether to file a fresh petition or not. This what we would suggest".

The court thereafter listed the matter on August 25.

The Court's observations came a day after it orally remarked that the petitioner could consider filing a better-framed petition seeking guidelines on police surveillance during protests.

On Monday, the ASG had argued that since the protest had concluded, the reliefs sought in the PIL had become infructuous. The petitioner, however, maintained that the challenge survived as it sought a declaration that the alleged surveillance was illegal.

On this the Court had orally remarked: “In a better petition, you can file it later. You can make prayer of guidelines. Whatever mechanism is there with them they will put on record and we will pass orders.”

As the ASG said that there cannot be a publicity interest litigation, the Bench said:

“Better file a petition where we can examine what provisions are there in place. If they are adequate, not adequate. This petition as we understand was confined to a particular aspect.”

According to the petition, since the commencement of the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) sit-in protest and hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on June 20, protesters were under round-the-clock watch through a permanent surveillance tower installed at the protest site.

It alleges that the monitoring encompasses not only acts of protest but also ordinary daily activities such as eating, resting and seeking medical assistance.

The petition further alleges that the surveillance apparatus has been used as an instrument of intimidation against student protesters.

The plea argues that the threatened use of surveillance material to identify and expose student protesters transforms the exercise from passive monitoring into an instrument of coercion and suppression of democratic dissent, thereby chilling the exercise of rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The petition also raises concerns regarding women protesters, alleging that during heavy rainfall, women who remained at the protest site in drenched clothes due to inadequate shelter continued to be photographed and videographed by police personnel, amounting to a serious invasion of bodily privacy and dignity.

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union Government had told the Court that "every protest is videographed" as a routine law-and-order measure and that a "claim of privacy in a public place is ironical."

Case Title: MS. AISHE GHOSH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

W.P.(C)-9639/2026