In the petition filed in Delhi High Court, objection has been raised on the use of permanent monitoring tower and modern police vehicles at Jantar Mantar.
Delhi’s Jantar Mantar has long been considered the main place of protests. Here students, employees, social organizations and different groups have been raising their voices regarding their demands. It was here that the Cockroach Janata Party movement took place, which ended today itself. At this place the police used technologies like camera surveillance, video recording and facial recognition, which raised questions. In this regard, a public interest litigation has been filed in the Delhi High Court. It says that continuous surveillance of protesters can affect their fundamental rights.
Come, let us understand what is the legal status of the increasing police surveillance and facial recognition technology at Jantar Mantar? Is this really a violation of the right to privacy?
After all, what is this whole matter?
Former JNU Students Union President Aishi Ghosh has filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court. In the petition, objection has been raised to the use of permanent monitoring tower and modern police vehicles at Jantar Mantar. These vehicles are said to have technology like cameras and facial recognition.
Picture of demonstration at Jantar Mantar. Photo: PTI
The petition argues that continuously taking photographs, recording videos and identifying peaceful protesters is very widespread surveillance. The petitioner says that this surveillance is not limited to just the stage, speech or procession. It is alleged that people’s personal activities like eating, resting and seeking medical help are also being recorded at the protest site.
What does facial recognition technology do?
Facial recognition is a digital technology. It analyzes the facial structure, eye distance, nose, jaw and other features of the person visible in the camera. After this the system creates a digital pattern of that face. Then it can be compared with the database of photographs available with the police or any other organization. If a match is found, the system can suggest a probable identity. The problem is that this technique can also be wrong. If a person’s identity is mistaken, he may face suspicion, questioning or trouble, so clear rules and accountability are considered necessary for the use of this technology.
Facial Recognition. Photo: Pexels
Impact of fear on the right to protest
The Constitution of India gives citizens the right to speak and assemble peacefully. People can express their views against the government, policies or social issues. The petition says that if every protestor feels that his face is being recorded, his identity is being recorded and his data can be used in the future, then he may be afraid of coming to the protest. This is called chilling effect. This means that due to fear people started using their legitimate rights less. They may refrain from speaking, writing, meeting or protesting.
Therefore, challengers say that surveillance does not only affect the person who is being recorded. This also affects those who want to join the protests in future.
Delhi High Court (file photo)
Why is the right to privacy important?
The Supreme Court had considered privacy as a fundamental right in the Puttaswamy judgment of 2017. Privacy is not just an indoor thing. Even in public places, a person’s dignity, private life and personal information are important. It is true that people can be seen by others in a public place, but the matter of continuous recording, digital identification of faces and keeping the data for a long time is different. It is normal for a person to be walking on the road. But recording his every movement with a camera, creating digital data of his face and matching it with the database can be considered a more serious interference. This difference is at the heart of this legal challenge.
What do law and legal experts say?
Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Kumar Dubey also discusses the Right to Privacy by quoting Justice KS Puttu Swamy’s decision of 2017. He says that this is a fundamental right. Accordingly, the privacy of the protesters is being violated. Their fundamental rights are being violated. This initiative of the police may definitely cause fear among the protesters.
One of the essential tests of the decision of Justice KS Puttu Swamy is that if the decision gives power to the police to investigate a case in which the unity, integrity, sovereignty and public property of the country has been damaged.
He says that the petitioners say that there is no essential regulatory system. There is no law. This is true but the way the crowd became violent. Policemen were attacked. There were attacks on the elderly. If injuries occur, it is important for technology to identify the attackers. Peaceful protest is everyone’s right, but as soon as it turns into violence, law and order takes over. Now the issue is in the High Court. The honorable court has to see what stand they take in this matter.
Lawyer Ashwini Kumar Dubey advocates that government action that interferes with privacy must meet three criteria.
- First: Law means there should be a clear and valid legal basis behind the action.
- Second: Legitimate purpose. The government should explain for what essential public purpose the surveillance is being done.
- Third: Proportionality means that the step taken should not be bigger than necessary. If work can be done in a less intrusive manner, then too extensive surveillance would not be considered appropriate. It has been said in the petition that the monitoring of Jantar Mantar raises questions on these three criteria.
lack of laws and regulations
India does not have a separate, detailed and dedicated law for the use of facial recognition and AI based surveillance by police. This is the major reason for this debate. Many questions arise due to lack of clear rules. Whose data can the police collect? How long will this data be kept? Who will see it? How will data be protected from theft or leaking? What can a citizen do in case of false identification? The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is a law related to the use of personal data, but government agencies may get wide leeway in it. Critics say that due to such exemption, there is not enough control over police surveillance. The main argument of the petition is that without clear procedures and independent monitoring, the use of such technology can be arbitrary.
question of women’s dignity
In the petition, special concern has been expressed on the privacy and dignity of women. It is alleged that due to lack of adequate shelter during the rain, some women had to stay at the protest site in wet clothes. In such a sensitive situation, serious questions arise regarding video recording. Recording a person’s vulnerable or uncomfortable position without his consent can affect his dignity. This issue is not limited to women only. The elderly, sick, disabled and protesters suffering from mental stress may also be in a more sensitive situation.
What do the government and police say?
The government has said in the court that videography of the demonstration is a normal measure to maintain law and order. Its objective is to maintain public safety and peace. The government also argues that when people are protesting in an open public place, and many people are making videos themselves and posting them on social media, then the claim of privacy can be limited. This argument is also important. Video evidence can be useful in investigating violence, vandalism or criminal activities. Police may need technology for crowd management and security. But the real question is, what should be the limit of surveillance in the name of security?
Also read: How did India become the largest seafarer producing country after Philippines?
