The Supreme Court received a petition on 28 July 2026 from Rajya Sabha MP A.A. Rahim. The petition challenges the use of facial recognition technology and related biometric tools by the Delhi Police during protests against the NEET‑UG exam paper leaks.
Key Developments
- The petition seeks a declaration that the surveillance is unconstitutional and orders an immediate stop to the use of biometric tools on peaceful protesters.
- It alleges that thousands of protesters, journalists and ordinary citizens have been monitored since the sit‑in began on 20 July 2026.
- Surveillance methods cited include CCTV, drones, a mobile command vehicle, hand‑held devices, and real‑time processing through tools named ‘Ikshana’ and ‘AjnaLens’.
- Fingerprint data were matched using the National Crime Records Bureau’s ‘Abhigyan’ against the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System.
Important Facts
The petition argues that neither the Delhi Police’s standing orders nor the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 authorise such mass surveillance. RTI responses from the police reveal:
- No privacy impact assessment was conducted before deployment.
- An 80% similarity score, which is not scientifically validated, is treated as a positive match.
- Official policy limits facial‑recognition use to locating missing persons and identifying the dead, not crowd control.
The petitioner contends that the surveillance violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Exam Relevance
Understanding this case helps aspirants in multiple GS papers:
- GS2 (Polity): Issues of fundamental rights, judicial review, and the balance between security and privacy.
- GS3 (Technology & Governance): Emerging use of AI‑based surveillance tools and the need for legal frameworks.
- GS4 (Ethics): Ethical dilemmas of state surveillance, consent, and data protection.
Way Forward
For a robust democratic order, the following steps are advisable:
- Legislative clarification on the permissible scope of biometric surveillance during lawful assemblies.
- Mandatory privacy impact assessments before deploying AI‑driven tools.
- Transparent guidelines on accuracy thresholds (e.g., similarity scores) to prevent false matches.
- Strengthening oversight mechanisms, possibly through an independent data‑protection authority.
Until such safeguards are in place, courts may continue to restrain unchecked surveillance to protect citizens’ constitutional rights.