The Supreme Court on Thursday, August 13, 2026, agreed to consider a petition challenging the use of facial recognition technology and other biometric surveillance methods by the Delhi Police against protesters during the NEET-UG-related demonstrations. The petition was filed by Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament A.A. Rahim, representing the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The court directed that the case be joined with other ongoing petitions regarding the police crackdown on students and the use of pellet guns during the protests. The hearing will be presided over by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The protests, which began on June 20, 2026, were organized by the Cockroach Janta Party and centered around allegations of mismanagement in the conduct of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Undergraduate (NEET-UG) exams. The movement gained momentum following the forced removal of activist Sonam Wangchuk from the protest site on July 20, leading to a violent clash with the police. The incident triggered widespread outrage and resulted in the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The protests expanded beyond Delhi, drawing support from students and activists nationwide. Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing Rahim, argued before the Supreme Court that the Delhi Police had deployed facial recognition technology and other advanced surveillance tools without proper legal authorization. According to her submissions, the police used private entities to store and process biometric data collected from protesters, journalists, and ordinary citizens. The data was gathered through CCTV cameras, drones, a mobile command and control vehicle, and handheld devices. Real-time facial recognition was conducted using the “Ikshana” vehicle and “AjnaLens” smart glasses, while fingerprint data was collected via the National Crime Records Bureau’s “Abhigyan” mobile application linked to the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS). Guruswamy emphasized that the surveillance was conducted in a legal vacuum, violating multiple laws, including the Data Protection and Privacy Rules (DPDP Rules), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and others. She stated that the data was collected without the consent of the individuals being monitored and stored by private companies, raising serious concerns about privacy and constitutional rights. The petition also highlighted the use of pellet guns and other forceful tactics by the police, which the petitioner claimed constituted excessive use of force against peaceful demonstrators. In addition to challenging the legality of the surveillance, the petition seeks several remedies. It demands a declaration that the indiscriminate use of facial recognition and biometric surveillance against peaceful protesters is unconstitutional. It also requests that the Delhi Police be restrained from employing such technologies until Parliament passes a specific law authorizing their use. The petition further calls for the permanent deletion of biometric data collected from protesters and journalists from government databases such as NAFIS and the Central Crime Tracking Network (CCTNS). It also requires private vendors to certify the destruction of this data and prevent its use in training or improving facial recognition and artificial intelligence systems. The petition also seeks transparency regarding the surveillance technologies, databases, standard operating procedures, and vendor agreements employed during the Jantar Mantar protests. Individuals affected by the surveillance are requested to be informed whether their biometric information was collected and given the option to request its deletion. The petitioner argues that the continuous and pervasive nature of the surveillance infringes upon fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceful assembly. The Supreme Court has directed the Centre and the Delhi Police Commissioner to respond to the petition within a specified timeframe. The case will be heard alongside other pending petitions related to the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest, which include allegations of police brutality and misuse of force. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for the regulation of biometric surveillance in India, particularly in the context of public protests and civil liberties.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
India
