Supreme Court to Examine Legality of Biometric Surveillance Used Against Protesters
2 sources · India
Who reported this
- The Hindu
- Hindustan Times
What the colours mean
- Left
- Centre-left
- Centre
- Centre-right
- Right
- A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.
Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.
Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.
The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.
Every source for this story reports from India.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday agreed to examine the legality of facial recognition technology and biometric surveillance deployed by the Delhi Police against protesters. A three judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notices to the Centre and the Delhi Police Commissioner following a petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP A.A. Rahim. The court directed that the plea be tagged with other pending petitions regarding the NEET UG protests, which include allegations of police violence and the use of pellet guns.
The petition alleges that since the start of the sit in, thousands of protesters, journalists, and ordinary citizens have been subjected to pervasive surveillance. According to the plea, the Delhi Police used CCTV cameras, drones, a mobile command and control vehicle, and handheld devices. Specifically, the petition names the Ikshana surveillance vehicle and AjnaLens smart glasses for real time facial recognition, as well as the NCRB Abhigyan application for matching fingerprints against the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that the data was collected without permission and is being hosted by private agencies in violation of DPDP Rules and the CrPC. The petition contends that such surveillance was carried out in a legal vacuum, asserting that neither the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 nor Delhi Police standing orders authorize biometric surveillance of persons at a lawful assembly. MP Rahim has sought a declaration that the deployment of these technologies against peaceful protesters is unconstitutional and has requested the deletion of biometric data from national criminal databases.
How each side framed it
- Centre-left
- Framed the event as a challenge to unconstitutional mass surveillance and a violation of legal frameworks.
- Centre-right
- Framed the event as a judicial examination of whether the police actions had legal backing and whether fundamental rights were violated.
Sources
100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.