Facial recognition tech used at CJP protests only to find those with criminal record: Delhi Police to Supreme Court

Delhi Police on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that its use of facial recognition technology (FRS) during the recent protest at Jantar Mantar was confined to persons with existing criminal records and did not result in indiscriminate surveillance of the crowd.

The submission was made before a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana during the hearing of a plea concerning the surveillance measures undertaken by police during the recent protests led by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).

The police said that the FRS was deployed as a legitimate and proportionate measure to maintain public order, prevent crimes and safeguard life and property of the citizens.

It added that the technology only captures the faces of those already booked in previous offences,

"The facial recognition system does not automatically capture, create, generate or maintain profiles of every individual present at the protest site, nor is it deployed for indiscriminate surveillance or collection of personal information of peaceful protesters unless he has a previous criminal record," the police said in an affidavit.

The Court was also told that the system only carries the details of accused persons facing serious offences and not petty offences like traffic challans.

The police further said that the biometrics of such persons are always available with the police in National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in compliance with statutory provisions.

2,873 persons with criminal records were identified between July 20 and July 26 through the system at the Jantar Mantar protest site, it was further submitted.

Of these, 92 persons are linked to more than 10 cases each.

Appearing for Delhi Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court that there was a "misconception" about how the system operates.

"It does not identify everybody indiscriminately. It captures a face and checks whether it matches the records maintained by the National Crime Records Bureau concerning persons with serious criminal antecedents. Those are the approximately 2,800 persons referred to earlier," Mehta submitted.

He added that no automatic action follows after a match.

"After a possible match is generated, no action is taken automatically. There is field verification. If the face of a person with a serious criminal case appears to match the database, the police thereafter verify where that person was, what their location was and what they were doing at the protest," he said.

Following today's hearing in a batch of petitions related to the protests, the Court said it will constitute a high-powered judicial committee to look into the alleged police excesses, violence against police personnel and other related issues.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioners, told the Court that the issue of facial recognition technology requires separate consideration.

"It cannot simply be referred to the committee. The Court will have to hear and decide it," Guruswamy submitted.

The Bench said that the committee could weigh in on the subject for the Court to take a final call.

"The committee may give its opinion on it. Ultimately, we will decide," the Bench said.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan, also representing the petitioners, questioned whether the police were authorized to collect such data.

"This amounts to surveillance. What is being done with the material collected? There are two separate questions: first, the collection of facial recognition data and, second, the processing of that data. Are the authorities legally entitled to process this material?" Hariharan asked.

Guruswamy told the Court that private companies were also involved in processing the material.

"Private companies are also being used to process facial recognition material. This issue must therefore be kept separately for adjudication," she said.

Guruswamy also disputed Mehta's account of how the technology functions.

"That is not how the technology works. They first collect all the images. The issue is not merely matching. The collection and processing itself raises constitutional concerns," she submitted.

At this, Justice Bagchi said,

"We have to see this from the lens of proportionality and not privacy."

CJI Kant said the proposed committee is essentially meant for fact-finding, and that the legal questions would remain with the Court only.