Supreme Court Agrees To Hear PIL Challenging Delhi Police's Facial Recognition Surveillance At Jantar Mantar Protest

The Supreme Court today has agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Delhi Police's alleged use of facial recognition technology (FRT), AI-powered surveillance systems and biometric identification tools to monitor and identify thousands of people participating in a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy told a CJI Surya Kant led bench today, "It is a very specific prayer concerning facial recognition being used by the Delhi Police against protesters, and the data is held with private companies. One maps your face and one 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, we will argue, of the DPDP Rules, CrPC..".

The bench agreed to hear the petition and ordered that it be tagged with a pending plea.

The petition filed by sitting MP of Kerala, A.A. Rahim contends that the indiscriminate deployment of facial recognition technology and allied biometric-surveillance measures violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The plea has been filed through AoR Subhash Chandran K R.

'Continuous and pervasive biometric surveillance'

According to the plea, since the commencement of the sit-in on June 20, 2026, led by the Cockroach Janta Party and several student and youth organisations, the Delhi Police has subjected "thousands of protesters, journalists and ordinary citizens to continuous and pervasive biometric surveillance."

It alleges that the surveillance was carried out through three methods:

1. indiscriminate collection of photographs and videos using CCTV cameras, drones, a Mobile Command and Control Vehicle and handheld devices;

2. real-time facial recognition using the "Ikshana" surveillance vehicle and AjnaLens smart glasses; and

3. fingerprint collection through the NCRB's "Abhigyan" application, matched against the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS).

The petition describes this as: "...the automated, algorithmic extraction and matching of the biometric identifiers of thousands of peaceful protesters, and the interlinking of such data with permanent national criminal databases."

'Surveillance in a complete legal vacuum'

The petition argues that no existing law authorises biometric surveillance of individuals participating in a lawful protest.

It states: "This surveillance is carried out in a complete legal vacuum." According to the plea, neither the Delhi Police Standing Orders governing protests nor the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 authorise the biometric surveillance of peaceful demonstrators.

Relying on RTI responses obtained from the Delhi Police, the petition claims that:

- no Privacy Impact Assessment was ever conducted;
- an 80% similarity score is treated as a positive facial recognition match despite no public validation;
- facial recognition technology is officially intended only for tracing missing persons and identifying the deceased, and not for policing peaceful assemblies.

The petition further alleges that the collected biometric data is retained indefinitely and may be integrated into national criminal databases without any statutory safeguards, purpose limitation or retention policy.

Violation of Privacy, Free Speech and Assembly Rights

The petition argues that the surveillance regime violates the constitutional right to privacy recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, and fails the tests of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality. It further contends that the deployment of facial recognition technology creates a chilling effect on citizens' willingness to exercise their rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).

According to the petition: "...it violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) by producing a real and demonstrable chilling effect on the rights to peaceful assembly and free speech." The plea also alleges that the surveillance is manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate under Article 14, particularly when conventional policing measures such as barricading, physical policing and ordinary CCTV monitoring were already available.

Private companies also made respondents

Apart from the Union of India, Delhi Police and the NCRB, the petition has also impleaded:

1. Aditya Infotech Ltd. (CP PLUS), which allegedly supplied the "Ikshana" facial recognition vehicle, and
2. Dimension NXG Pvt. Ltd. (AjnaLens), which allegedly supplied the AI-powered smart glasses used during the surveillance.

The plea alleges that these private entities actively participated in the sovereign function of policing and may presently possess the protesters' footage, facial templates and biometric information. It states that no data-processing agreement, data-sharing arrangement or contractual safeguards governing access to such highly sensitive personal data have been disclosed.

What the petition seeks

The petitioner has sought a declaration that the indiscriminate deployment of facial recognition technology and biometric surveillance against peaceful protesters is unconstitutional. Among the principal reliefs sought are directions to:

-declare the deployment of facial recognition technology against peaceful assemblies unconstitutional;
-restrain Delhi Police from deploying facial recognition and biometric surveillance until Parliament enacts a valid law authorising such measures;
-disclose all surveillance technologies, facial recognition systems, databases, standard operating procedures and vendor agreements used during the Jantar Mantar protest;
-direct the NCRB to stop capturing, matching or storing biometric information of persons unconnected with any cognisable offence;
-order the deletion of protesters' biometric data from NAFIS, CCTNS and all allied databases;
-establish a transparent mechanism allowing affected individuals to determine whether their biometric information has been collected and seek its deletion;
-restrain private vendors from using the collected biometric information to train, develop or improve facial recognition or AI systems; and
-direct the private companies to permanently delete all biometric data collected during the protest and certify such destruction before the Court.

The petition concludes that mass biometric surveillance of peaceful assemblies without statutory safeguards threatens the constitutional guarantees of privacy, free speech and peaceful protest, and warrants immediate intervention by the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Adv A.A. Rahim MP v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: August 13, 2026