The Centre on Friday (24th July) opposed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the use of a permanent surveillance tower and high-tech police vans equipped with facial recognition technology monitoring protestors at Jantar Mantar during Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protests.
Calling the PIL “ironic”, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that seeking privacy in a public place like the Jantar Mantar is an “oxymoron”. The SG said that every protest held at the Jantar Mantar is videographed and the CJP-led protest is no exception. “When there is a legitimate state interest, proportionate state action can take place,” SG Mehta said.
SG Mehta pointed out before the High Court that several influencers were present in the protests, who were making live videos and posts on social media. Besides, many journalists were live reporting from the protest site and conducting interviews there. The SG further said the CJP leaders themselves urged the protestors to videograph everything.
The Solicitor General apprised the court that videography at protest sites is a routine measure adopted by law enforcement in accordance with standing orders issued in compliance with Supreme Court directions.
The petition filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union president Aishe Ghosh challenges what it termed as the “continuous, indiscriminate and intrusive surveillance” of peaceful protesters by the Delhi Police. It sought a declaration from the High Court that “continuous and intrusive mass surveillance” of protesters is not permissible under the Constitution and cannot be justified in the name of maintaining public order or national security.
“The surveillance is indiscriminate in nature, extending to every individual present at the protest site, irrespective of any suspicion of unlawful conduct and encompassing not merely the public acts of protest, but also the ordinary incidents of daily life, including eating, resting, seeking medical assistance and other personal activities,” the plea stated.
Senior advocate Nandita Rao, appearing for Ghosh, claimed that state action cannot be equated with the conduct of private individuals. “Citizens are different. State is on a much higher pedestal,” Rao said. She alleged the protest site was under CCTV surveillance and private conversations of protesters were also being recorded, “which can be later used by the police”.
Rao referred to the Delhi Police’s standard operating procedure and argued that a protocol was required to regulate the video recording of protesters and the duration for which the recorded content would be stored by the authorities.
She requested the court to direct the Centre to respond, but the court postponed the hearing till 27th July. “There are issues and issues. We need to make up our mind first. We will have it on Monday,” a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said.
