The Delhi High Court is examining the legality of the Delhi Police's use of AI-powered surveillance during protests linked to the CJP movement at Jantar Mantar. A petition filed by activists challenges the deployment of facial recognition technology, AI-enabled cameras, continuous videography, and other monitoring tools, arguing that such measures infringe on the constitutional rights to privacy, free speech, and peaceful assembly. The petition seeks the deletion of collected biometric data and the creation of clear legal safeguards governing the use of surveillance technologies at public demonstrations.
According to the petition, police maintained extensive surveillance using AI-equipped observation systems and facial recognition vans capable of identifying individuals in real time. Civil liberties groups contend that these technologies can discourage citizens from participating in lawful protests by creating a chilling effect on democratic expression. The case has intensified debate over whether AI-driven surveillance is being used proportionately and whether sufficient legal oversight exists for collecting and retaining protesters' personal data.
The Delhi Police has defended its actions, stating that video recording and AI-assisted monitoring are used solely to maintain public order, investigate alleged violence, and identify individuals involved in criminal acts. Authorities argue that surveillance is necessary to ensure security during large gatherings and deny that it is intended to suppress peaceful protest. The High Court has questioned whether the police follow a formal standard operating procedure (SOP) and whether the surveillance measures meet constitutional standards of necessity and proportionality.
The case is expected to become an important test of how AI surveillance technologies can be used in India. Its outcome could influence future policies on facial recognition, biometric data collection, and the balance between public safety and individual privacy. As AI-powered surveillance becomes more common in law enforcement, the court's decision may help define the legal framework governing its use during public demonstrations and other civic events.
