The Delhi High Court on Friday, 24 July deferred to 27 July the hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging continuous police surveillance of student protesters at Jantar Mantar, after the Centre defended videography of public demonstrations as a routine law-and-order measure. The government argued that protesters at a public venue carry no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Centre's Position Before the Court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, raised a preliminary objection and submitted that videography of public protests is an accepted mechanism for maintaining law and order, carried out in accordance with standing orders issued pursuant to Supreme Court directions. He argued that protest organisers themselves undertake to comply with these standing orders.

Mehta contended that while privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted where a legitimate state interest exists. He submitted that videography enables authorities to identify individuals responsible for any untoward incident. The Solicitor General further noted that protesters themselves voluntarily record videos, conduct interviews, and circulate content on social media — making a claim of privacy in such a setting, he argued, untenable. 'There can be no expectation of privacy in a public protest unless there is intrusion into a person's private life,' Mehta submitted.

Petitioner's Arguments on Privacy and Surveillance

Senior advocate Nandita Rao, appearing for the petitioner, relied on the Supreme Court's landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment to argue that the right to privacy extends to persons participating in demonstrations held in public places. She submitted that any restriction on the right to privacy must satisfy the constitutional tests of legality, legitimate state purpose, and proportionality.

Rao alleged that plainclothes police personnel were recording protesters, including female students aged between 16 and 20 years, and referred to media reports claiming that AI-enabled live facial recognition technology was being deployed at the protest site. She warned that reliance on facial recognition could potentially expose innocent individuals to criminal prosecution.

Rao further argued that government surveillance stands on an entirely different footing from recordings made by private individuals or journalists, and that police surveillance without statutory safeguards could have a chilling effect on democratic dissent. She urged the court to direct authorities to place on record the procedure governing such surveillance, including safeguards for data storage and use.

Court's Observations

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the legal position on the right to privacy was well settled and noted that similar petitions on the issue were already pending before the High Court. The bench suggested the petitioner could seek impleadment in those proceedings. Rao, however, maintained that the present petition was distinct, having been filed prior to the police action on 20 July, and specifically challenged continuous surveillance rather than the subsequent police action itself.

About the PIL and Broader Context

The PIL was filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU) president Aishe Ghosh, alleging that peaceful protesters at Jantar Mantar have been subjected to continuous photography, videography, and surveillance by police, extending even to routine activities at the designated protest site. The petition contends that such monitoring has become an instrument of intimidation and seeks a legal framework governing surveillance, including data protection safeguards and regulation of facial recognition technology.

This comes amid a separate batch of PILs before the Delhi High Court alleging excessive use of force during the CJP-led 'Sansad Chalo' march over the NEET paper leak on 20 July. In that matter, the court had directed preservation of CCTV footage and other records, with the next hearing listed for September. The matter is next scheduled for hearing on 27 July.