Back
Jantar Mantar Protest Surveillance: Seeks Guidelines After Police Oppose PIL
The on Monday delved into the contentious issue of mass surveillance during peaceful protests at the capital’s designated protest site, Jantar Mantar, after the stoutly opposed a (PIL) that alleges continuous, indiscriminate videography and monitoring of demonstrators. , appearing for the police, categorically denied any snooping or surveillance, asserting that the recording of protests is a routine security measure meant solely to maintain law and order. The bench, comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, however, invoked the ’s ruling in and asked the police to inform whether any standard operating procedure or guidelines exist to regulate protests and hunger strikes. The matter has been posted for further hearing on Tuesday, promising a deeper examination of the constitutional tension between the right to protest and the state’s power to monitor public assemblies.
A Plea Against Pervasive Surveillance
The PIL, filed by former president Aishe Ghosh, paints a grim picture of a protest site under relentless watch. According to the petition, since the commencement of the sit-in and hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on , protesters have been subjected to round-the-clock observation through a permanent surveillance tower. The monitoring, the plea contends, is indiscriminate—extending not just to public acts of protest but to everyday activities like eating, resting, and seeking medical assistance. It alleges that police personnel have been photographing and videographing women even during heavy rainfall when their clothes were drenched, amounting to a serious invasion of .
The petition underscores how the apparatus of surveillance has been weaponised to instil fear among student protesters. “On several occasions, police personnel have threatened student participants that the photographs and videos taken of them at the protest site would be forwarded to their parents, guardians, and the principals or authorities of their respective educational institutions,” the plea states. Such tactics, it argues, transform passive monitoring into an instrument of coercion, chilling the exercise of guaranteed under of the Constitution. The former JNUSU president has thus sought a declaration that the continuous and intrusive mass surveillance of peaceful protesters is unconstitutional, disproportionate, and fails the test of the “”. Among the interim reliefs sought is a direction to suspend all mass photography, videography, and surveillance at Jantar Mantar until the authorities can demonstrate a proximate, real, and imminent threat to public order.
Police Defend Recording as Routine Law-and-Order Measure
Countering the allegations, adopted a firm, dismissive stance. “At Jantar Mantar, some or the other protest is going on. Every protest is always recorded,” he submitted, stressing that such videography is standard procedure. “This is only for the purpose of law and order. There is no snooping. There is no surveillance.” He further pointed out that hundreds of protesters themselves are “making videos and reels and making them viral,” implying that the police’s recording was neither covert nor disproportionate. Characterising the PIL as “luxury litigation”, Mehta urged the court not to read a intent into what is essentially a security protocol.
The police also relied on the fact that the designated protest site often witnesses competing demonstrations and that photographic records help in identifying mischief-makers, preventing crimes, and ensuring accountability. However, this blanket justification did not entirely satisfy the bench. The court’s reference to the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan judgment suggests a discomfort with an unregulated regime of protest surveillance. In that case, the had lamented the absence of clear guidelines for handling protests and had directed the central government and states to frame appropriate rules. By asking Mehta to clarify whether any such SOP exists, the signalled that it may not accept videography without safeguards.
The Constitutional Balancing Act
The legal crux of the matter lies at the intersection of two competing public interests: the state’s duty to maintain public order and the citizen’s right to assemble peacefully and express dissent. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to free speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably without arms. Both rights are, of course, subject to under clauses (2) and (3) of the same article, which permit the state to impose curbs in the interests of . However, any restriction must pass the test of —it must not be arbitrary, must have a legitimate aim, and must be the least intrusive means of achieving that aim.
The ’s landmark decision in elevated the right to privacy to a fundamental right under . The intrusive and indiscriminate collection of personal data, including images and videos of individuals who have committed no offence, squarely engages this right. The contention that protesters have no reasonable in a public space is increasingly being questioned in the digital age, where bulk surveillance can lead to profiling and social ostracisation. , appearing for the petitioner, rightly argued that an individual does not surrender their privacy simply because they are present in a public space; the nature and extent of state monitoring still matters.
The petition’s reliance on the “” doctrine adds a crucial dimension. Even if the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining law and order during protests, blanket videography of every individual—including those merely sleeping, eating, or resting—goes far beyond what is necessary. The threat to share photographs with educational institutions and parents, if true, converts surveillance into a tool of intimidation, directly impeding students from exercising their constitutional freedoms. This is anathema to a vibrant democracy that relies on dissent and dialogue.
Implications for Democratic Protests and Legal Practice
The outcome of this PIL will have far-reaching consequences for the future of protest in India. Jantar Mantar, like the Ramlila Maidan and Shaheen Bagh before it, has historically served as a safety valve for public discontent. If the courts permit unchecked surveillance, the designated space could become a panopticon where every gesture is recorded and every participant is liable to be identified, thereby defeating its very purpose. It could also embolden the state to deploy similar tactics at other protest sites, from farmers’ marches to labour rallies, with a corresponding on collective action.
For legal practitioners, the case highlights the urgent need for clear statutory or judicial guidelines on the use of surveillance technologies during assemblies. The ’s direction in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan remains largely unimplemented, and the ’s intervention could fill that vacuum. Lawyers representing activists and protesters will watch closely to see whether the court mandates a prior judicial or executive review before mass surveillance is deployed, or at least requires an report on its . Any guidelines formulated will also impact the police’s standard operating procedures across the country.
The broader political context, though distinct, cannot be entirely ignored. The surveillance PIL comes amid the CJP’s prolonged protest over alleged exam irregularities, which has seen climate activist Sonam Wangchuk undertake a hunger strike now in its third week. While Wangchuk’s health and the related police actions are being heard in separate proceedings, the atmosphere of heightened security and the use of force during the “Chalo Sansad” march on Sunday add weight to the petitioner’s claims of intimidation. The ’s eventual ruling may thus also serve as a judicial check on the use of executive power to stifle dissent during critical protests.
The Road Ahead
As the resumes hearing on Tuesday, all eyes will be on whether it directs the framing of comprehensive guidelines. The court has already indicated its proactive stance by invoking the ’s precedent and may go beyond the immediate dispute to lay down principles that balance security concerns with . If the court ultimately finds the current surveillance practices excessive, it could mark a significant victory for civil liberties and reaffirm the constitutional guarantee of peaceful protest. Conversely, a ruling that condones blanket recording could embolden security agencies and write a new, less democratic chapter in India’s protest jurisprudence. For now, the nation’s legal community waits with bated breath.
