Central Government Defends Surveillance at Student Protests
The Central government has taken a firm stance in the Delhi High Court regarding the surveillance of student protests at Jantar Mantar, a well-known protest site in New Delhi. On Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that claims of privacy at such a public venue, where numerous protests are staged, are ‘ironical.’ He asserted that videography of protests is a routine measure to ensure law and order, adhering to existing standing orders and judicial directives.
During a hearing before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, Mehta emphasized that the practice of recording protests is not exclusive to any single demonstration. ‘This videography is conducted for every protest. At Jantar Mantar, people are constantly recording videos, influencers create reels, and the media conducts interviews. It’s ironic to claim privacy in such a setting,’ Mehta stated.
The court was addressing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Aishe Ghosh, former President of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU). The PIL challenges the ‘continuous and intrusive’ police surveillance of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protesters, among others, at the site. Solicitor General Mehta opposed the issuance of notice on the PIL, noting that the CJP frequently encourages its supporters to document events on their phones, producing numerous video reels.
State Surveillance vs. Private Videography
Representing Ghosh, Senior Advocate Nandita Rao contended that there is a fundamental distinction between state surveillance and videography conducted by private citizens, such as students and journalists. She argued against equating police surveillance with independent media coverage. ‘There is a difference between a journalist and the State. Journalists can be sued for defamation, but the State’s recordings could be used more severely. They document private conversations, which should not be equated with public recording,’ Rao explained.
Rao further expressed concerns about data security and the absence of regulatory measures. ‘There are no provisions in the standard operating procedure (SOP) for data protection. We seek clarity on where this data is stored and how it will be destroyed. Our demand is for a procedure that protects against misuse,’ she added.
More Read
Rao also referenced reports of police utilizing facial recognition technology, which is reportedly only 70 to 80 percent accurate. ‘Such technology, with its inaccuracies, could lead to wrongful trials,’ she remarked.
Next Steps in the Legal Proceedings
Following a brief hearing, the Bench scheduled the case for further consideration on July 27. The Central government was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit.
