CPI (M) leader and Rajya Sabha MP AA Rahim has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi Police’s use of facial recognition technology (FRT) and other biometric surveillance measures during the July 2026 student protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the public interest litigation (PIL) sought a declaration that the indiscriminate use of biometric surveillance at peaceful public assemblies is unconstitutional and prays for directions restraining the deployment of such technologies until Parliament enacts a law regulating and authorising their use.
The plea alleged that the Delhi Police deployed facial recognition systems, AI-enabled smart glasses, fingerprint identification tools and other biometric surveillance technologies without any statutory authority, thereby violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, including the rights to equality, privacy, freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly.
The petition arises from the youth-led protests organised by the online collective Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which demanded the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over repeated question paper leaks. Pradhan resigned on July 25, following which the protests were called off.
According to the petition, protesters, journalists and bystanders were subjected to continuous biometric surveillance through CCTV cameras, drones, a Mobile Command and Control Vehicle, AI-powered facial recognition systems and the National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) Abhigyan mobile fingerprint identification application. It alleges that the Delhi Police carried out automated extraction, processing and matching of protesters’ biometric identifiers with permanent criminal databases despite the absence of any enabling legislation.
The petition contends that the surveillance exercise was undertaken in a legal vacuum. It argues that neither the Delhi Police Standing Orders governing public protests nor the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 authorises the indiscriminate collection of biometric information or the use of facial recognition technology against persons participating in peaceful civilian assemblies.
It further states that the Delhi Police’s own response under the Right to Information Act indicates that no privacy impact assessment has ever been conducted before deploying facial recognition technology. The plea also claims that, according to the police, the technology was originally intended only for tracing missing persons and identifying deceased persons, and not for monitoring peaceful demonstrators.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India* (2017), the petitioner argues that any State action affecting the right to privacy must satisfy the constitutional tests of legality, legitimate State purpose and proportionality. It contends that the deployment of facial recognition technology during peaceful protests fails to satisfy these constitutional requirements.
The petition further alleges that the biometric data of thousands of protesters was captured, retained, processed and matched against undisclosed databases without their knowledge or consent. It claims that the authorities failed to disclose the purpose of the data collection, the retention period, purpose limitation, data-processing safeguards or any oversight mechanism. According to the plea, such data is liable to be stored indefinitely and integrated into national criminal databases without statutory safeguards or accountability.
The petition also alleges that the Delhi Police used real-time facial recognition technology through the Ikshana Mobile Command and Control Vehicle and AI-powered AjnaLens smart glasses. It states that fingerprints were simultaneously collected and matched using the NCRB’s Abhigyan mobile application.
Rahim has sought directions against the Union Government, the Delhi Police, the NCRB and private technology companies Aditya Infotech Limited (CP Plus) and Dimension NXG Private Limited (AjnaLens). The petition states that these companies designed, supplied and operated the surveillance technologies and allegedly possess or control video footage, facial templates and other biometric information collected during the protests. It contends that no data-processing agreement, data-sharing protocol or disclosure regarding the access of these private entities to sensitive personal data has been placed in the public domain, raising concerns over informational privacy, data security and accountability.
The petition seeks a declaration that the surveillance is unconstitutional, an immediate halt on the use of facial recognition technology at peaceful protests until a statutory framework is enacted, disclosure of the surveillance technologies, databases and vendor arrangements used during the protests, deletion of biometric data relating to persons not accused of any criminal offence and the creation of a grievance redressal mechanism enabling affected individuals to ascertain whether their biometric information was collected, access such information and seek its deletion.
It also seeks directions requiring the private technology companies to preserve the collected biometric records pending adjudication, cease further processing of such data and permanently delete the biometric information in their possession relating to persons not accused of any criminal offence.
The petition points out that a similar challenge to the alleged use of surveillance technologies during the Jantar Mantar protests is already pending before the Delhi High Court. In those proceedings, the High Court has sought the Centre’s response on whether any standard operating procedure or regulatory framework governs the deployment of such surveillance measures during public demonstrations, while the Union Government has defended the videography of protests as a routine measure undertaken to maintain law and order.
The petition has been filed through advocates Subhash Chandran KR, Ribhav Pande, Madhav Aggarwal, Anuka Bachawat and Anirudh KP.
The post CPM MP moves Supreme Court against facial recognition, biometric surveillance at Jantar Mantar protests appeared first on India Legal.