WHO WATCHES THE PROTESTERS? SUPREME COURT EXAMINES POLICE USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
November 4, 2026
The Supreme Court of India has sought a response from the Centre on a petition challenging the use of facial recognition technology and other biometric surveillance systems to identify people participating in public protests in Delhi. The proceedings have brought renewed attention to the constitutional boundaries of police surveillance, the right to privacy and the protection of peaceful democratic assembly.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued notice on a petition filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre, which questioned the legality of deploying facial recognition systems to identify protesters. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the collection and subsequent use of facial data raised serious concerns about citizens' fundamental right to privacy.
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether an individual's presence in a public place automatically eliminates their reasonable expectation of privacy. The court also examined whether collecting surveillance footage and identifying individuals through technological systems could, by themselves, establish a legitimate state interest.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, defended the authorities' position, arguing that people participating in public demonstrations could not simultaneously disregard the presence of surveillance cameras deployed for public safety and security. He maintained that CCTV cameras had been installed at strategic locations to prevent untoward incidents and protect protesters, particularly women.
The petition challenges the alleged deployment of facial recognition systems, surveillance vehicles and smart glasses during demonstrations at Jantar Mantar. It also raises concerns about the collection, processing and storage of protesters' biometric information and its possible sharing with private companies and integration into national criminal databases.
The controversy follows disclosures concerning the Delhi Police's use of facial recognition technology during earlier demonstrations. According to information presented in the proceedings, the police had identified 2,873 individuals through the system, including people with previous criminal records. The petitioners have questioned the legal basis and safeguards governing such identification and the subsequent handling of personal information.
The court also referred to the Identification of Prisoners Act and its provisions concerning the collection of biometric information, including iris scans. However, the central legal question remains whether surveillance technologies can be deployed against individuals participating in civilian demonstrations without sufficiently clear statutory authority and safeguards.
The hearing also covered separate petitions concerning restrictions on protests at Ramlila Maidan and the economic difficulties faced by traders, vendors and daily-wage earners because of prolonged demonstrations. The bench observed that the right to protest must be considered alongside the right to trade and earn a livelihood. It also noted that demonstrations generate economic activity for hawkers and vendors supplying goods and services to protesters.
The Supreme Court has therefore been called upon to examine several competing constitutional and public interests, including freedom of peaceful assembly, individual privacy, public security and the right to livelihood. The proceedings are continuing, and the Centre's response will be important in determining the legal framework governing the use of facial recognition and biometric surveillance at public protest sites.
