Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Facial Recognition of Protesters in Delhi

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response to a petition challenging the use of facial recognition technology to identify people attending protests in Delhi. The case has brought a larger question into focus: how far can authorities go in monitoring citizens in the name of public safety?

On November 3, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued notice to the Centre. The petition, filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), questions the use of facial recognition and surveillance systems at designated protest sites. The petitioners argue that scanning people's faces and matching them with police records can affect their right to privacy and discourage citizens from participating in peaceful demonstrations.

How Did the Controversy Begin?

The issue is linked to student protests held at Delhi's Jantar Mantar in July 2026 over the alleged NEET paper leak. During the demonstrations, Delhi Police deployed surveillance vehicles equipped with cameras and facial recognition software. The technology scans faces captured on camera and compares them with photographs stored in police databases. According to an affidavit submitted by Delhi Police to the Supreme Court, its facial recognition system identified 2,873 people whose details matched existing police records. The police said the system was used to identify people with criminal backgrounds and maintain security during the protests. However, the figure has raised questions about how the technology works and whether its results can always be trusted.

An investigation by The Indian Express found that at least 25 people from a group of individuals flagged for serious offences were reportedly in jail when the system identified them at the protest site. The findings raise concerns about possible errors in facial recognition matches.

What Did the Supreme Court Question?

During the November 3 hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised an important question: Does a person lose their right to privacy simply because they are standing in a public place? The discussion focused on the difference between recording someone through CCTV and using facial recognition software to identify them by matching their face with police records. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that CCTV cameras are used to prevent untoward incidents and protect public safety, including the safety of women.

Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Menaka Guruswamy, representing the protesters, questioned the use of facial recognition and argued that authorities should explain the legal basis for such surveillance. The Supreme Court has not declared the technology illegal. It has sought the Centre's response before examining the matter further.

In its landmark 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution. India also has the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which governs the processing of digital personal information. However, the law includes certain exemptions for activities related to preventing, detecting and investigating offences.