Delhi Police Denies Snooping Protesters; High Court Seeks Guidelines on Surveillance
The Delhi Police has denied allegations of intrusive surveillance of the ongoing 'Cockroach Janata Party' protests at Jantar Mantar. Appearing before the Delhi High Court on Monday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that videography at the site was conducted solely for maintaining law and order, and not for snooping or surveillance.
“At Jantar Mantar, some protest or another is always going on. These are always recorded. Hundreds of people made viral videos at this protest. This is only for law and order. There is no snooping. There is no surveillance,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
The submissions were made during a hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) president Aishe Ghosh. She challenged what she described as the Delhi Police's “indiscriminate and continuous surveillance” of the protest.
A Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia referred to the Supreme Court's landmark 2018 judgment in the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan case, which laid down guidelines for regulating protests. The court asked whether the Delhi Police had framed guidelines in compliance with the apex court's directions. The court will hear the matter again on Tuesday.
In her petition, Ms. Ghosh alleged that police personnel at the site routinely photograph and videograph protesters, their activities, interactions, and movements. She claimed that a permanent surveillance tower equipped with cameras has been erected in the middle of the protest site, enabling round-the-clock monitoring.
Ms. Ghosh further alleged that the surveillance apparatus has been used as “an instrument of intimidation and deterrence against student protesters.” She claimed that police officers threatened to share photographs and videos with the protesters' parents, guardians, or educational institutions.
Such threats, the petition argued, “created a pervasive atmosphere of fear” and deterred students from attending the protest, associating with the movement, or expressing their views openly. The plea stated that surveillance has a “chilling effect” on the exercise of freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which protect the right to free speech and peaceful assembly.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between the state's need to maintain public order and citizens' constitutional rights to protest and dissent.
