The Delhi High Court police surveillance PIL challenges the alleged continuous photography and videography of people participating in peaceful protests at Jantar Mantar. The petition argues that the blanket surveillance violates the fundamental rights to privacy, free speech, and peaceful assembly. It also claims that the monitoring creates an atmosphere of fear and discourages democratic dissent.
PIL Filed Before Delhi High Court
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) president and CPI(M) leader Aishe Ghosh. She approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition names the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, as respondents. Advocates Subhash Chandran KR and Anirudh KP represent the petitioner.
Allegations of Continuous Surveillance
The petition relates to an ongoing sit-in protest and hunger strike launched on June 20 by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), led by student activist Abhijeet Dipke.
According to the plea, Delhi Police installed a permanent surveillance tower equipped with high-definition cameras at Jantar Mantar. It further alleges that police personnel continuously photograph and record everyone present at the protest site.
Moreover, the petitioner claims the surveillance extends beyond protest activities. The recordings allegedly capture people while they rest, eat, or receive medical assistance, raising serious concerns about privacy.
Claims of Intimidation
The petition also alleges that police officials threatened student protesters by saying the recorded visuals would be shared with their parents, guardians, and educational institutions.
As a result, the petitioner argues that such actions create a chilling effect on democratic participation. The plea further highlights an incident during heavy rainfall, when women protesters remained at the site in wet clothes because of inadequate shelter. Despite the circumstances, police allegedly continued photographing and filming them. The petitioner claims this violated their bodily privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Constitutional Challenge
The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. It argues that the alleged surveillance fails the constitutional tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the authorities have not identified any statutory provision or official policy authorising blanket surveillance at peaceful protest sites. Therefore, the plea argues that the practice violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of the Constitution.
Reliefs Sought
The Delhi High Court police surveillance PIL seeks a declaration that continuous mass surveillance at designated protest sites is unconstitutional. It also requests an immediate suspension of blanket photography and videography unless authorities establish a clear and imminent threat to public order.
Additionally, the petitioner seeks directions to preserve official records and metadata, delete personal data collected without lawful justification, and frame clear guidelines governing surveillance at protest venues. The plea also requests better civic amenities, including drinking water and sanitation facilities, for demonstrators.
