Plea in SC against Delhi Police's facial recognition usage at Jantar Mantar protest
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the deployment of facial recognition technology (FRT) and other biometric surveillance measures by the Delhi Police during the July 20 protest at Jantar Mantar. The protest was led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) over the NEET paper leak.
The petition was filed by the Rajya Sabha lawmaker, A A Rahim from Kerala of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). He has approached the top court seeking a declaration that the use of indiscriminate biometric surveillance at peaceful public assemblies is unconstitutional and should be restrained until Parliament enacts a law specifically authorising and regulating such measures.
The plea, filed by advocate Subhash Chandran K R, claimed that Delhi Police carried out biometric surveillance despite the absence of any legal framework governing such action.
The Delhi police used automated systems to extract and match protesters' biometric data, and linked this information to permanent national criminal databases. The police also claimed that using FRT, they had identified over 2,873 individuals with criminal records at the protest site.
The plea further claimed that protesters, journalists, and members of the public were continuously monitored through indiscriminate photo and video collection using CCTV cameras, drones, and a mobile command-and-control vehicle.
The petition further stated that a Right to Information (RTI) response from Delhi Police confirmed no privacy impact assessment was carried out before deploying FRT.
It also claims that the police had previously maintained that FRT which was intended to be used only for tracing missing persons and identifying deceased people during the protest.
Relying on the landmark judgment in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, the plea said that the impugned surveillance fails the constitutional tests of legality, legitimate state purpose and proportionality.
The petition seeks directions requiring authorities to disclose the technologies, databases and vendor arrangements used for biometric surveillance and establish a mechanism enabling affected individuals to access their data and seek its deletion through a grievance redressal process.
It also sought a direction to the private companies to preserve; cease using and permanently delete any biometric data in their custody.
