Back
PIL Seeks Mandatory Body-Worn Cameras for Police, RAF During Protests
A filed before the has called for a binding making compulsory for all and personnel deployed on crowd-control and protest-management duties. The petition, moved by advocate , argues that the current absence of a mandatory camera regime leaves accountability for both police conduct and protester violence dependent on “happenstance citizen videography” — a situation that undermines the guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of .
The plea seeks not only mandatory activation of BWCs but also a comprehensive framework governing the storage, integrity, retention, and evidentiary use of recorded footage, including safeguards such as hash values, secure server uploads, and auditable protocols. The petition contends that such a regime would “protect both sides of the barricade” by providing an objective, authenticated record of police-citizen encounters during large gatherings.
Background: The Jantar Mantar Protests and Allegations of Excessive Force
The PIL draws heavily on the events surrounding the protests at Jantar Mantar, which involved the and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk. According to the petition, allegations of excessive use of force by and RAF were met with counter-allegations of stone-pelting, vandalism, and attacks on police personnel. Crucially, much of the footage documenting the confrontation came from mobile phones of bystanders rather than from an official, authenticated police recording system.
The petitioner points to a order by the High Court that directed preservation of relevant records, including CCTV footage and videography “if any.” Raghav argues that the conditional language — “if any” — underscores the absence of a mandatory, officer-worn recording mechanism. She submits that contemporaneous, officer-mounted cameras would have provided unassailable evidence to identify both police excesses and protester misconduct, thereby clarifying the sequence of events.
The Legal Gaps: Advisory vs. Binding Framework
The petition notes that a advisory from the on the use of body-worn cameras was merely recommendatory and did not prescribe mandatory activation, minimum retention periods, safeguards, or consequences for non-use. Similarly, a Standing Order on regulating rallies and processions provided only for third-party videography, which the petitioner argues has inherent limitations — it cannot capture events from the perspective of personnel directly involved in crowd control.
“The BWC is an accountability record of the police-citizen encounter and not a facial recognition dragnet of the crowd,” the plea states, addressing privacy concerns. “Indeed, the deployment at Jantar Mantar in reveals that the priorities of the respondent are inverted — surveillance-facing technology (facial-recognition cameras, 360-degree surveillance vans) were deployed, and the footage is now being used to lodge FIRs against the protestors. The present petition seeks to correct this inversion.”
The petitioner also relies on observations of the concerning the use of body-worn cameras in search and seizure operations, as well as provisions of the , which mandate audio-video recording of such procedures. Extending that logic to crowd-control operations, the PIL argues, is a natural step toward ensuring .
’s Preemptive Rollout
While the PIL was pending filing, had already begun issuing body-worn cameras to frontline officers deployed in areas such as New Delhi, Central Delhi, and North Delhi, particularly around protest sites and roads leading to the office. An official source told PTI that the bodycams were issued to personnel involved in crowd management and security arrangements following a series of demonstrations over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Police officials stated that the cameras would help maintain a real-time video record of events and interactions, providing evidence in case allegations are made against officers on duty. “The bodycams are important, particularly when officers are dealing with large crowds, and there are allegations from either side. The recordings can help establish what happened during a protest,” the source said.
The move comes amid heightened security and following complaints by three women journalists of alleged sexual harassment and manhandling by police while covering a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at Jantar Mantar on . One of the journalists alleged that an ACP sexually assaulted her. The transferred the complaints to the for an impartial inquiry, but no FIR had been registered at the time of reporting. The incident spurred independent journalists to protest outside the Parliament Street police station, demanding registration of an FIR and examination of CCTV footage.
Judicial Scrutiny and Implications for Police Accountability
The PIL is now likely to bring increased judicial scrutiny on the use of technology to record police action during protests. The petition specifically seeks directions to the , the Commissioner of , the Director General of the , and the to establish a binding, enforceable body-worn camera regime.
The court will have to balance several competing interests: the , the of individuals in crowds, and the and investigate crimes. The petitioner argues that the relief sought is “narrowly tailored to crowd control” and does not seek indiscriminate surveillance. Instead, the focus is on creating an authoritative record that can be used both to hold police accountable and to prosecute violent protesters.
From a legal perspective, the case raises questions about the for footage recorded by BWCs. The PIL proposes certification under , which deals with the . Defining a protocol for hash values and tamper-proof uploading would ensure that footage meets the threshold for , reducing disputes about authenticity that often plague cellphone videos.
A Developing Trend: Bodycams as a Tool for Transparency
The ’s decision to deploy bodycams, even before a court order, signals an acknowledgement of the need for transparency. However, without a binding SOP, the usage remains ad hoc — cameras may be turned off, footage may be selectively retained, or there may be no uniform policy on how long recordings should be kept. The PIL seeks to remedy these gaps by mandating always-on activation during crowd-control duties and clear guidelines on retention and access.
For legal professionals, the outcome of this PIL could set a precedent for how police forces across India handle documentation of protest-related events. If the High Court directs the framing of a detailed SOP, it may become a model for other states. Conversely, if the court defers to the executive, the current patchwork of advisories and limited deployments may continue, leaving both police credibility and citizen rights vulnerable.
Conclusion
The PIL before the represents a significant push toward institutionalizing the use of body-worn cameras in one of the most contentious areas of law enforcement — crowd control. By arguing that mandatory BWCs protect the rights of both protesters and police, the petitioner has framed the issue as one of balanced accountability rather than surveillance. With the court now set to examine the legal and practical dimensions, the case could reshape the rules of engagement for future demonstrations in the national capital and beyond.
