Click the Play button to listen to article

In its affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Delhi Police has taken a stand that facial recognition software deployed during student protests over examination paper leaks only captured the images of criminals or history sheeters.

The police says that the use of the technology was a proportionate policing measure. The software, according to the affidavit, does not automatically capture profile of every individual present at the protest site, nor is it deployed for indiscriminate surveillance or collection of personal information of peaceful protestors unless he has a previous criminal record.

The police further claims that no action is taken solely on the basis of facial recognition software. A field verification is also carried out to be sure that the person in question was present at site or not. Further, the software only captures persons who have a past criminal record for serious offenses, not petty offenses like traffic challans.

When the matter was heard today by a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reiterated these submissions before the Court. SG stated that the technology captures the faces of only those persons who are recorded in the crime database.

The contention was however met with opposition from Senior Advocates N Hariharan and Menaka Guruswamy, who claimed that that is not how the technology works. Guruswamy in particular alleged that the police even engaged a private company to process the data collected through facial recognition software.

The Supreme Court has also issued notice on another petition which questions the deployment of surveillance tools at protest sites.

When the bench proposed to relegate all issues related to the student protests to High-Powered Committee headed by a former judge of the Court, the petitioners' counsel opposed relegation of the facial recognition issue to the Committee. It was highlighted that this issue involves privacy concerns and matters of constitutional importance cannot be referred to the Committee.

At last, CJI Kant assured that constitutional issues would be determined by the Court alone.

Case :Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and others | WP(c) No. 280/2026 (and connected cases)

Tags: