The Delhi High Court on 7 October 2026 directed the Centre to decide within six months on framing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the mandatory use of body-worn cameras by Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel deployed on crowd-control and protest-management duties. The order came while disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) that drew attention to an alleged regulatory gap exposed during the July 2026 protests at Jantar Mantar.

What the Court Directed

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Arun Bhardwaj directed the government to treat the PIL as a representation and communicate its decision on the SOP within six months. The PIL had been filed by advocate Chahat Raghav in the aftermath of clashes at Jantar Mantar involving the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, which reportedly left student protesters and more than 50 police and paramilitary personnel injured.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, agreed that the petition could be treated as a representation and that a decision would be communicated within the stipulated period. He also noted that a representation to the concerned authorities was required before invoking PIL jurisdiction, citing a Supreme Court judgment and Delhi High Court rules.

The Case for Body-Worn Cameras

Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Delhi Police's existing framework relies on third-party videographers stationed at the periphery of crowds and falls short of providing a contemporaneous record of actions by personnel on the ground. He contended that body-worn cameras could meaningfully address both accountability for alleged police excesses and the identification of protesters who resort to violence.

'If technology is available, it can go a long way in fixing accountability whenever required. It is different from facial recognition where there are concerns of surveillance,' Sibal argued before the bench.

The petition pointed to what it described as a 'systemic vacuum': no existing rule, regulation, standing order or SOP mandates Delhi Police or RAF personnel to carry body-worn cameras during crowd-control deployments, nor is there a framework governing storage, integrity, retention or the evidentiary use of such footage.

Government's Position

The Centre submitted that guidelines for organising protests were already in place and that videography was covered under the existing framework — specifically Delhi Police Standing Order No. L&O/10/2022 on the regulation of rallies and processions. It maintained that the petitioner could separately seek a framing of a dedicated body-camera SOP through the representation route, which would then be considered in accordance with law.

Notably, the petition itself acknowledged that Delhi Police had recognised the need for body-worn cameras as far back as January 2020, yet had not converted that recognition into a binding regime in the intervening years.

Procurement Already Underway

The PIL revealed that procurement efforts are reportedly in motion even without a binding SOP. According to the petition, Delhi Police had floated a tender for 1,500 body-worn cameras at a total value of approximately ₹7.4 crore, while the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) had initiated procurement of 480 such cameras specifically for RAF units.

The gap between procurement and governance — buying equipment without a mandatory-use or data-retention framework — was central to the petitioner's argument that technology alone is insufficient without a binding legal architecture around it.

What Happens Next

With the High Court disposing of the PIL on the government's undertaking, the next milestone is the Centre's formal response within six months. If a draft SOP is framed, it would need to address always-on deployment requirements, tamper-proof data storage, chain-of-custody protocols, and rules governing the evidentiary admissibility of footage. Civil society groups and legal observers are likely to track whether the government meets the deadline or seeks an extension — a pattern seen in earlier accountability-linked PIL disposals.