Back
Standing Order No. 10/ Limits Jantar Mantar Protests Amid Facial Recognition Surveillance Concerns
A Delicate Balance: Regulating Dissent at Jantar Mantar
In , the issued a comprehensive standing order—No. 10/—to regulate protests at the historic Jantar Mantar and Boat Club areas, following a directive from the . The order capped the number of protesters at 1,000, banned overnight stays and marches, and restricted the use of loudspeakers. Now, that same regulatory framework is at the center of a new constitutional challenge, as the use of facial recognition technology by police at Jantar Mantar protests in raises serious questions about privacy, surveillance, and the limits of state power.
From Resident Complaints to Supreme Court Directions
The origins of Standing Order No. 10/ lie in a application before the filed by permanent residents of Jantar Mantar Road. The residents complained that the area had become a perennial site for protests, causing noise and air pollution and untold misery. The NGT ordered an immediate stop to all protests and the shifting of demonstrators to Ram Leela Maidan. That order was challenged in the Supreme Court, which on directed the , to frame detailed guidelines for “limited use of the area” while ensuring that protests do not disturb residents or offices. The Court specifically empowered the police to require prior permission and to set parameters for granting it.
The Standing Order: A Framework for Orderly Protests
The resulting standing order, signed by then Commissioner Amulya Patnaik, is a meticulous blueprint. It mandates that applications for permission be submitted at least seven days in advance to the , who may grant or reject permission on a first-come, first-served basis. The maximum number of protesters at Jantar Mantar is set at 1,000; beyond that, protests must move to Ramlila Ground. Marches from the designated protest spot are prohibited, and loudspeakers may only be used between 10 AM and 5 PM with specific permission. The order also prohibits tents, temporary structures, and the carrying of weapons or items that could be used as weapons. Organizers must sign an undertaking to comply with all conditions, failing which they face prosecution.
The Surveillance Controversy: Facial Recognition at the Heart of a New Challenge
While the standing order was designed to balance the against public order and resident welfare, a new controversy erupted in July . During protests at Jantar Mantar, the deployed the “Ikshana van”—a mobile surveillance vehicle equipped with eight fixed cameras and facial recognition technology. The system, first inducted before the 2023 G20 Summit, was used to compare live CCTV footage with criminal databases. A was filed in the on , alleging that the surveillance violated the constitutional rights to privacy, dignity, free speech, and peaceful assembly. The defended the action, arguing that there is no at a public protest and that the surveillance was a routine law-and-order measure in compliance with the standing order.
Constitutional Crossroads: Legality, , and Privacy
The case, now pending before the Supreme Court, tests the limits of the state’s surveillance powers. The petitioners invoke the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. () judgment, which recognized privacy as a fundamental right and laid down a four-part test for state surveillance: , and procedural safeguards. The critical question is whether the existing standing order—which authorizes recording but not —provides a legal basis for matching faces against a criminal database. As the authors of a recent analysis note, “Recording does not mean identification. An order that allows the police to film a crowd does not, by itself, allow them to convert those faces into searchable data.”
The Supreme Court has indicated it will examine the of the surveillance, presuming that the legality limb is met. Yet, no Indian statute explicitly permits of people at public assemblies. , , and all govern interception and monitoring, but none address facial recognition in crowds. exempts government processing from key safeguards. This statutory gap leaves citizens vulnerable.
Key Observations from the Judgment and the Challenge
The standing order itself is silent on surveillance. Its only reference to recording is in the context of limiting the number of protesters: “Any organizer(s) bringing in protesters in numbers in excess… will be video-graphed and their non-compliance… shall be considered not only for legal action… but will also be kept on record.” This is a far cry from authorizing automated biometric matching against a criminal database.
The additional source on the surveillance controversy powerfully states: “Where there is no law, there is nothing to balance or calibrate. However, still applies—a state action in pursuance of public order, of which surveillance and subsequent database match form a part.”
What Lies Ahead: The Pending Supreme Court Review
The Supreme Court is now tasked with deciding whether the surveillance at Jantar Mantar was . The outcome will have profound implications for the and the use of emerging technologies by law enforcement. The case also highlights the absence of a comprehensive surveillance statute in India. As the same analysis notes, “A right that cannot be invoked by the people it protects is not a right; it is a promise the state keeps at its own convenience.”
For now, Standing Order No. 10/ remains the operative framework for protests at Jantar Mantar. But the controversy over facial recognition has turned a bureaucratic document into a flashpoint for a much larger debate about the balance between security and liberty in the digital age.
