MP challenges Delhi Police's facial recognition use at NEET protest in SC
Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament A.A. Rahim moved the Supreme Court on Tuesday against the use of facial recognition technology and related surveillance measures by the Delhi Police during protests over the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) exam paper leak. The petition seeks a judicial declaration that such surveillance is unconstitutional.
Filed through advocate Subhash Chandran, the petition demands that the police immediately stop using facial recognition technology and other surveillance methods on peaceful protesters without a valid legal basis. It argues that the automated extraction and matching of biometric identifiers from thousands of protesters, and linking that data to national criminal databases, violates fundamental rights.
The petition states that since the sit-in began on July 20, Delhi Police have subjected protesters, journalists, and ordinary citizens to continuous biometric surveillance. This includes using CCTV cameras, drones, a mobile command vehicle, and handheld devices to capture photos and videos. The footage is processed in real time through facial recognition technology using equipment such as the 'Ikshana' vehicle and 'AjnaLens' smart spectacles. Fingerprints are collected and matched via the National Crime Records Bureau's 'Abhigyan' mobile application against the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System.
The petition claims this surveillance operates in a complete legal vacuum, as neither the Delhi Police's own standing orders nor the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 authorise such biometric monitoring of a lawful assembly. It further notes that Right to Information (RTI) responses from Delhi Police confirm that no privacy impact assessment was conducted, that an unvalidated 80% similarity score is considered a positive match, and that the stated purpose of the facial recognition technology is limited to tracing missing persons and identifying the deceased—objectives unrelated to policing a peaceful protest.
The petitioner argues that the scale and manner of surveillance offend the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and dignity. The case highlights ongoing concerns about the use of surveillance technology without adequate legal safeguards.
