CPM leader and Rajya Sabha member A A Rahim has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi Police's use of facial recognition technology (FRT) and other biometric surveillance measures during the youth-led protests in Delhi's Jantar Mantar over the NEET paper leak row.

The petition alleges that the Delhi Police deployed facial recognition systems, AI-enabled smart glasses, fingerprint identification tools and other surveillance technologies during the protests without any statutory backing. It contends that the measures violated the rights to privacy, free speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

According to the petition, the Delhi Police subjected protesters, journalists and bystanders to continuous 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.

Questioning the legality of the exercise, the petition states that the surveillance was carried out without the sanction of any law, rule or published safeguards and was not confined to the Jantar Mantar protests alone. It argues that the practice reflects an expanding system of biometric surveillance of peaceful protests by the Delhi Police in a legal vacuum, affecting the fundamental rights of the public at large.

The petition further alleges that the Delhi Police captured and processed the biometric data of thousands of protesters using facial recognition technology and matched it against undisclosed databases without informing those being surveilled. It also claims that the authorities failed to disclose the purpose of the data collection, the period for which the data would be retained or the safeguards governing its use.

According to the plea, while the Delhi Police has standing orders governing public protests, none of them authorises the indiscriminate collection or use of biometric information or facial recognition technology.

The petition has sought directions against the Union Government, the Delhi Police, the NCRB and two private technology companies—Aditya Infotech Ltd. (CP PLUS) and Dimension NXG Pvt. Ltd. (AjnaLens).

Among the reliefs sought, the petition has asked the Supreme Court to declare the surveillance unconstitutional and direct an immediate halt to the use of facial recognition technology at peaceful protests until a law regulating its use is enacted. It has also sought directions to the authorities to disclose the technologies and databases used, delete the biometric data of persons not accused of any crime, establish a mechanism enabling individuals to ascertain whether their data was collected and seek its deletion, and restrain private companies involved in the surveillance from using or retaining protesters' biometric data.

The petition points out that a similar issue is pending before the Delhi High Court in a PIL challenging the alleged surveillance of the protests. In that case, the High Court recently sought the Centre's response on whether any standard operating procedure or guidelines regulate such surveillance. The Centre opposed the issuance of notice and defended the videography of protests, stating that demonstrations at Jantar Mantar are routinely recorded to maintain law and order.
(With Bar and Bench inputs)