The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to pass directions to ensure that Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel deployed for crowd-control or protest-management always wear body cameras [Chahat Raghav v. Union of India and Ors].
A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Arun Bhardwaj directed the government to treat the public interest litigation (PIL) as a representation.
The Court said that the government will take a decision in six months on framing a standard operating procedure (SOP) on the issue. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the government's inaction, they can approach the Court again, the Bench said.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, requested the Court to set a shorter timeframe for the government to act. However, the Court denied the request.
"When it comes to an element of any supervision, most of the time, I've seen it is within the ambit of the Home Ministry. And when it comes within the ambit of the Home Ministry, you can understand the workload," the Court said.
The High Court passed the order while disposing of a PIL filed in the aftermath of the July 2026 demonstrations at Jantar Mantar led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk. Clashes broke out during the protest, resulting in injuries to student protesters as well as over 50 police and paramilitary personnel.
Petitioner Chahat Raghav, who was present at the demonstration, submitted that the entire record documenting the alleged excessive force, including instances of lathi-charges, pellet injuries and an officer slapping a woman protester, relied almost exclusively on unauthenticated mobile footage shot by bystanders rather than official state recordings.
Sibal told the Court today that the Delhi Police’s existing framework relies solely on third-person videographers positioned along the periphery.
"There is something in the 2022 Standing Order, but it is wholly inadequate. I am saying these cameras are sporadically used. Unless there is some law that steps in. At least let them say whether they use it, is there a procedure?" Sibal submitted.
He added that if the technology is available, it will go a long way in ensuring transparency.
"It is different from facial recognition, where there are issues of privacy," he said.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit appeared for the government and told the Bench that according to the High Court rules, a representation must be made to the authorities before filing of the PIL.
Sharma said that there is already an SOP on the issue of videography of protests.
After considering the case, the High Court disposed of the PIL, directing the government to treat it as a representation and take a decision within six months.
The PIL was filed through advocates Vipul Wadhwa and Kanishk Gera.
[Read Live Coverage]