The Delhi HC is currently examining a PIL challenging the "intrusive surveillance" of peaceful protesters at Jantar Mantar, raising critical questions about the balance between public order and individual privacy rights in India.
Key Points
- The Delhi high court is reviewing a PIL against "intrusive surveillance" at Jantar Mantar protests.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserts that videography at protest sites is for law and order, not snooping.
- Petitioner Aishe Ghosh argues that continuous surveillance violates protesters' fundamental right to privacy.
- The court has requested police to provide information on guidelines for regulating protests, as mandated by the Supreme Court.
- The PIL seeks to halt mass photography and videography at Jantar Mantar until a clear, imminent threat to public order is established.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Delhi high court on Monday that video-recording of the protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi over alleged irregularities in examinations is not for "snooping" but for law-and-order purposes.
The senior law officer told a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia that protests at Jantar Mantar are always videographed.
The bench was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) plea filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU) president Aishe Ghosh against the Centre and the Delhi police, alleging "continuous, indiscriminate and intrusive surveillance" at the Jantar Mantar protest.
Arguments On Surveillance Legality
"At Jantar Mantar, some or the other protest is going on, (and) it is always recorded.... This is only for law and order and safety. There is no snooping. There is no surveillance," Mehta, appearing in the court for authorities, submitted. "As a matter of fact, in this protest, daily hundreds of people are seen making video films and making reels and making them viral," he added.
The bench posted the PIL for hearing on Tuesday and asked Mehta to inform if police have formulated any guidelines on regulating protests, as mandated by the Supreme Court in a judgment.
Senior counsel Nandita Rao, appearing in the matter for the petitioner, argued that authorities are carrying out "intrusive" surveillance of student protestors at Jantar Mantar, which is unsustainable in law. Rao argued that an individual's right to privacy is not surrendered even in public spaces. Mehta described the PIL as "luxury litigation".
Background Of The Jantar Mantar Protest
The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has been holding the protest at Jantar Mantar since June 20, demanding Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation over alleged irregularities in examinations, including the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).
Activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the agitation on June 28 and has been on an indefinite fast since then.
Petitioner's Demands And Evidence
The PIL, filed through lawyer Subhash Chandran K R, has sought a declaration that "continuous and intrusive mass surveillance" of peaceful protesters is constitutionally impermissible, disproportionate and cannot be justified under the guise of maintaining public order or national security.
It has sought a direction to authorities to forthwith suspend the mass photography, videography and surveillance at Jantar Mantar until there is a "proximate, real and imminent threat to public order", justifying such measures.
"The petitioner has in her possession photographs depicting the permanent surveillance tower and the continuous photography and videography undertaken by police personnel, which demonstrate the pervasive and intrusive nature of the surveillance being carried out by the respondents," the plea has said.
"The surveillance is indiscriminate in nature, extending to every individual present at the protest site irrespective of any suspicion of unlawful conduct and encompassing not merely the public acts of protest but also the ordinary incidents of daily life, including eating, resting, seeking medical assistance and other personal activities," the plea has said.
