The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear a public interest litigation challenging the alleged deployment of facial recognition technology, artificial intelligence surveillance, and biometric gathering systems by the Delhi Police during student demonstrations over the NEET examination. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, directed that the writ petition filed by Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament AA Rahim be tagged alongside previously pending matters related to protest policing and surveillance practices.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, pointed out critical constitutional concerns regarding automated face-mapping tools, AI-powered smart eyewear, and specialized surveillance vehicles utilized by law enforcement without explicit consent or statutory authorization from Parliament.
According to the petition, police personnel deployed advanced facial scanning systems during sit-in demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, extracting digital biometric identifiers from peaceful student demonstrators, media representatives, and bystanders before allegedly cross-referencing and matching that information against national criminal databases.
Legal counsel emphasized that sensitive personal biometric data collected through these automated tools is hosted by third-party private firms, creating substantial vulnerabilities and violating fundamental privacy rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as established data protection guidelines.
The plea highlights how the unvalidated deployment of facial recognition algorithms, operating with arbitrary similarity thresholds, creates a chilling effect on citizens seeking to exercise their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and free speech under Article 19.
The legal challenge underscores a growing nation-wide debate regarding the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework governing real-time biometric surveillance by state law enforcement agencies.
While authorities routinely cite public order and crowd management as justification for monitoring large gatherings, civil liberties advocates argue that pervasive digital tracking without judicial oversight or prior privacy impact assessments fails the fundamental constitutional tests of necessity and proportionality laid down in landmark judicial precedents.
As the apex court prepares to examine the merits of the plea, the outcome is expected to establish crucial legal boundaries regarding governmental use of artificial intelligence and biometric surveillance technologies during lawful public demonstrations across the country.