New Delhi, Jul 28 A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court by a Rajya Sabha lawmaker challenging the alleged deployment of facial recognition technology (FRT) and other biometric surveillance measures by the Delhi Police during the recent Jantar Mantar protest led by the Cockroach Janta Party.
A A Rahim, a Rajya Sabha member from Kerala of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), 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 through advocate Subhash Chandran K R, alleged that the Delhi Police conducted biometric surveillance in a "complete legal vacuum".
It said that neither the Delhi Police Standing Orders governing protests nor the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, authorises biometric surveillance of persons participating in civilian assemblies.
According to the plea, the Delhi Police carried out automated extraction and matching of protesters' biometric identifiers and allegedly linked the data with permanent national criminal databases.
It alleges that protesters, journalists and other members of the public were subjected to continuous biometric surveillance through indiscriminate collection of photographs and video footage using CCTV cameras, drones and a mobile command-and-control vehicle.
The petition further states that an RTI response from the Delhi Police confirms that no privacy impact assessment has been conducted for the deployment of facial recognition technology.
It also claims that the police had previously maintained that FRT was intended to be used only for tracing missing persons and identifying deceased persons.
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.
