Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on November 3 issued notice on a plea challenging facial surveillance at designated protest sites, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi raising the question of what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when a person is present in a public place.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre alleging that the deployment of facial recognition and surveillance tools at protest sites infringes the right to privacy.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the authorities should disclose the nature of surveillance being undertaken and the legislative framework under which it is carried out.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government, questioned the plea, asking, "Right to privacy in a public place? What kind of PILs are being filed?"

He submitted that CCTV cameras were installed at designated protest sites to ensure that no untoward incidents take place. The SG argued that accepting the petitioner's contention would mean that CCTV cameras installed for women's safety would also have to be removed.

Justice Bagchi termed the argument "very simplistic" and distinguished between the mere association of a face with an individual and the subsequent utilization of the data collected through surveillance. 

The judge referred to the amendment to the Identification of Prisoners Act, observing that the legislative change enabled the State to utilise iris identification for crime detection.

"We have never seen any petitioner referring to the amendment to the Identification of Prisoners Act. Because that is the legislative change which took place. That Identification of Prisoners Act enables the State, in the matter of detection of crime, to utilize iris identification," Justice Bagchi observed.

The Solicitor General responded that the protesters were not prisoners and questioned the objection to government surveillance when 500-600 social media influencers were recording the protests live.

"500-600 influencers are recording live, they are objecting to government CCTV. What about them?," Mehta submitted.

The bench then turned to the question of whether the presence of a person in a public place necessarily diminishes their reasonable expectation of privacy.

"It's about reasonable expectation of privacy. When I am standing in a public place, what's my reasonable expectation?" Justice Bagchi asked.

The judge also questioned whether the surveillance data collected by the authorities could be justified as serving a legitimate state interest. Justice Bagchi asked whether the availability of surveillance footage and the collection of data would, by themselves, amount to a legitimate state interest.

The Solicitor General maintained that legitimate state interest was an exception to the right to privacy.

Details of the petition 

The petition alleges that Delhi Police and other authorities deployed extensive surveillance mechanisms to identify and track individuals participating in, or intending to participate in, the October 10 protest at Jantar Mantar.

SFLC has sought the disclosure of records relating to the surveillance programmes, the legislative framework under which they operate and the safeguards put in place to prevent misuse of personal data. It has also sought binding guidelines governing the collection, processing and dissemination of citizens' personal information.

The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's recognition of privacy as a fundamental right and argues that surveillance in the digital age requires a more comprehensive constitutional framework.

It also invokes the judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997), which laid down safeguards concerning telephone interception.

It refers to reports concerning the deployment of Delhi Police's DP-Drishti and Ikshana surveillance vans, which allegedly use AI-assisted facial recognition technology to scan live CCTV feeds.

SFLC.in also cites an investigation by The Indian Express concerning the accuracy of facial recognition technology deployed during earlier protests at Jantar Mantar in July 2026.

According to the investigation cited in the petition, the Delhi Police claimed to have identified 2,873 individuals through facial recognition systems. The newspaper reportedly examined 205 individuals allegedly facing serious criminal charges, including murder, attempt to murder and rape, and found that 25 of them were already in jail when the systems purportedly flagged them as present at the protest site.

The petition alleges that personal details, including residential addresses, mobile numbers and social media accounts of key organisers and activists, were collected and shared among police teams for electronic surveillance and ground monitoring.

It also refers to reports that plainclothes police personnel were stationed outside the homes, hotels and guest houses where organisers were staying, with the alleged objective of tracking their movements and preventing them from reaching the protest venue.

Earlier, Supreme Court had sought the Centre's response on a similar petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP AA Rahim.

Tags: