Wildlife Surveillance & Tribal Privacy: Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To Approach Ministry

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL alleging that surveillance technologies such as camera traps and drones deployed in forest and tiger reserve areas across the country are capturing identifiable images of tribal communities without notice or consent.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi permitted the petitioners to submit a representation before the competent authorities.

The petition was filed by a Professor at the University of Cambridge seeking the court's intervention against misuse of conservation surveillance technologies in forest areas across the country.

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, for the petitioner, submitted that the matter related to the privacy of female forest dwellers and the petition sought guidelines to ensure that the data is not used against the tribeswomen. Khurshid requested that a high-powered committee be constituted to examine the matter.

Justice Bagchi observed that surveillance cameras are essential for the preservation of wildlife. "It can't be by forest guards alone, we have to use technology, and drones if necessary," Justice Bagchi said. Khurshid agreed that surveillance was aiding conservation, but flagged the issue of privacy violation.

CJI said that the petitioner should first approach the concerned authorities. Senior Advocate Prashant Kumar Sen, also for the petitioner, submitted that a representation was submitted, but no response was received.

The bench disposed of the petition allowing the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities, including the Ministry of Environment and Forests, with the propsoed guidelines.

The plea focused on the deployment of such technologies in the Jim Corbett National Park in Uttarakhand. It stated that while tools like camera traps and drones are widely used by State Forest Departments, research institutions and non-governmental organisations to study wildlife and migration patterns, there is no uniform or legally binding framework governing data deployment, collection or retention.

“However, there is currently no uniform or legally binding framework governing the deployment, collection, or retention of data. The absence of such regulation has led to widespread and unmonitored surveillance, resulting in violations of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution”, the plea states.

According to the petition, the absence of regulation has led to unmonitored surveillance that has incidentally captured images of members of tribal communities, including women of the Van Gujjar community, in their personal spaces without notice or consent. The plea claimed that such recording has caused discomfort, behavioural changes and livelihood disruption, with women altering movement patterns and avoiding certain forest areas due to fear of constant surveillance.

The petition further stated that images containing identifiable individuals engaged in traditional or subsistence activities are vulnerable to misuse and circulation in the absence of any legal or administrative remedy. It argued that the current use of conservation surveillance technologies infringes the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21, relying on the Supreme Court's nine-judge Bench decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

It was also contended that existing technical guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the National Tiger Conservation Authority provide operational directions on wildlife monitoring but do not address safeguards relating to human data captured by such technologies. The plea pointed to the absence of provisions on prior notice, consent, redaction of human bycatch and transparency in data handling.

The petition relied on the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, as well as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to argue that authorities collecting such data function as intermediaries or data fiduciaries and must adopt reasonable security practices. It stated that affected persons qualify as data principals but are not afforded mechanisms such as consent managers or grievance redressal under the current system.

The plea also stated that similar technologies are deployed in other protected areas including Kaziranga National Park, Hemis National Park and Ranthambore National Park, and that the issues identified in Jim Corbett could exist nationwide.

After hearing the matter, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and granted liberty to the petitioners to file a representation before the appropriate authorities.

Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid and PC Sen appeared for the petitioner.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 1174/2025

Case Title – Trishant Tapankumar Simlai v. State of Uttarakhand