Right to privacy claims at protest site ironic: Centre opposes PIL in Delhi HC on surveillance of CJP protests

The Central government on Friday defended the videography of students’ protest at Jantar Mantar, arguing that the claim of privacy in a public place like Jantar Mantar where protests are being held, was “ironical”. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, contended that all protests at Jantar Mantar are videographed as a routine measure to maintain law and order and that the same complies with a standing order issued by the authorities and judicial orders. 

“This [videography] is not only for this protest at this site. This videography is done for every protest. You go there any time, people are doing videography, influencers are there making reels, media taking interviews. It is ironical that they are claiming privacy. This [videography] is absolutely necessary and in legitimate state interest,” SG Mehta said. 

Mehta made the submissions before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.

The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) President Aishe Ghosh alleging “continuous and intrusive” police surveillance of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protesters and others at Jantar Mantar. 

Mehta opposed the issuance of notice on the PIL

“CJP [Cockroach Janta Party] handle repeatedly tells its supporters to get everything videographed through their mobiles. We are getting hundreds of reels made there. There is nothing called privacy in that,” Mehta added. 

Senior Advocate Nandita Rao appeared for Ghosh and argued that there is a difference between State surveillance and videography by students and protesters. She contended that the government was drawing a false equivalence between police officials and the journalists and protesters taking interviews or shooting videos.

“There is a difference between a journalist and State. Journalists and other people making videos can be sued for defamation, but when the State is doing it… It's a false equivalence… They are recording private conversations… There is a difference between State and private citizens. Can a private individual arrest someone based on these videos? Can they ask a college not to admit the students?” Rao said. 

She added that there were concerns about the data security and the lack of regulations. 

“There is no data protection in this SOP. Where do they secure it? Where do they store it. All we are seeking, make a procedure, protocol and see how data will be kept and how it will be destroyed. We are saying, protect us from misuse,” she said. 

Rao also referred to newspaper reports about facial recognition technology being used by the police, adding that the reports indicate they are only 70 per cent to 80 per cent accurate. 

“Based on 80 percent match a person can be undertrial for years,” she stated. 

The Bench after a brief hearing listed the case for further consideration on July 27. 

Along with SG Mehta, ASG Chetan Sharma and CGSC Ashish Dixit represented the Central government.