Supreme Court To Hear MP AA Rahim's Plea Against Facial Recognition, Biometric Surveillance At Protest Sites

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) Rajya Sabha MP AA Rahim challenging the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) and other biometric surveillance tools by police at protest sites.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana tagged the plea with other pending petitions concerning the recent student protests organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The case puts the spotlight on the growing use of surveillance technology at public demonstrations and the questions it raises over privacy and the limits of police powers, Live Law reports.

Delhi Police's Use Of Digital Tools Questioned

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Rahim, told the court that the petition was filed in the context of the Delhi Police allegedly using digital tools to monitor protesters at Jantar Mantar.

Guruswamy said the services of two private entities, Aditya Infotech Ltd and Dimension NXG Pvt Ltd, were used and alleged that the data collected was processed and stored in violation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

"One maps your face, and the other is a vehicle. So spectacles are used and a vehicle is also used. And that data is all taken without permission. These private entities host the data in violation of the DPDP Act," she submitted.

The bench agreed to consider the matter.

Plea Alleges 'Legal Vacuum'

At the heart of Rahim's petition is the claim that the Delhi Police carried out surveillance without a clear legal framework authorising such measures.

The petition argues that neither the Delhi Police standing orders governing protests nor the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, authorises biometric surveillance of people taking part in a civilian assembly.

According to the plea, police used CCTV cameras, drones, a mobile command and control vehicle and other technologies to collect and process photographs and footage of protesters, journalists and others present at the protest.

It contends that the indiscriminate biometric identification of people attending a peaceful assembly is not permitted under existing law. The issue assumes significance because surveillance at a protest does not merely involve the use of new technology but also raises questions about how far authorities can monitor citizens exercising their right to assemble.

Privacy Judgment Cited

The petition relies on the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, which held that State action infringing privacy must meet the requirements of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality.

Rahim has argued that the surveillance also raises concerns over the retention, sharing and processing of biometric information and the possibility of such data being linked with national criminal databases.

The plea highlights a broader concern surrounding biometric surveillance: once sensitive personal information is collected, questions arise over who can access it, how long it can be retained and how an individual can seek its deletion.

Also Watch:

Disclosure Of Technology, Vendors Sought

The petitioner has sought disclosure of the technologies, databases and vendor arrangements involved in the surveillance exercise.

He has also sought a mechanism that would allow affected people to access data collected about them and seek its deletion through a grievance redressal process.

The petition further seeks directions to the private respondents to preserve the biometric data in their custody, stop using it and permanently delete it.

The Supreme Court's consideration of the plea could therefore bring judicial scrutiny to the use of facial recognition and other biometric tools at protest sites, particularly when such technology is deployed to identify or monitor people taking part in public assemblies.