Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Rajya Sabha MP AA Rahim has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi Police's use of facial recognition technology (FRT) and other biometric surveillance tools during the month-long protests at Jantar Mantar over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, alleging that thousands of students, journalists and other participants were subjected to “unconstitutional” mass surveillance.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed under Article 32 of the Constitution through advocate Subhash Chandran, seeks a declaration that the surveillance was unconstitutional and a direction restraining law enforcement agencies from deploying facial recognition technology and other biometric surveillance measures at peaceful public assemblies until Parliament enacts a law specifically authorising such practices.
The petition stems from the protests that began on June 20 after the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak triggered nationwide outrage. Thousands of students, civil society groups and political activists gathered at Delhi's Jantar Mantar demanding accountability from the Union government and the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The demonstrations culminated in a 36-day agitation that ended only after the Union government accepted several demands and Dharmendra Pradhan resigned.
According to the petition, throughout the protest period the Delhi Police subjected participants to "continuous and pervasive biometric surveillance" through an extensive network of cameras, artificial intelligence-based facial recognition systems and fingerprint identification tools.
It alleges that police personnel recorded protesters using CCTV cameras, drones, body-worn cameras, handheld devices, a mobile command-and-control vehicle and even personal mobile phones. The footage was processed in real time using the Ikshana surveillance vehicle equipped with facial recognition technology and AjnaLens AI-enabled smart glasses. The petition further claims that fingerprints collected through the National Crime Records Bureau's Abhigyan mobile application were matched against the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS).
"The gravamen of the challenge is the automated, algorithmic extraction and matching of the biometric identifiers of thousands of peaceful protesters, and the interlinking of such data with permanent national criminal databases," the petition states.
Rahim contends that the surveillance was carried out "in a complete legal vacuum", arguing that neither the Delhi Police's standing orders governing protests nor the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 authorise the biometric surveillance of people attending lawful public assemblies.
The petition argues that the deployment of facial recognition technology violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It states that such surveillance has a "real and demonstrable chilling effect" on the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly by discouraging citizens from participating in protests.
According to the plea, biometric surveillance began the moment individuals entered the vicinity of Jantar Mantar, irrespective of whether they intended to participate in the demonstrations. It alleges that people were continuously photographed and filmed while walking, resting, eating and even seeking medical assistance.
The petition also says that plainclothes police personnel intermittently resorted to lathi-charge against peaceful protesters and that much of the surveillance was carried out covertly by officers using personal mobile phones without informing people that their biometric data was being collected.
Rahim further argues that protesters were never told that facial recognition technology was being used, the purpose for collecting their biometric data, the databases against which it would be matched, or how long such information would be retained.
Citing Delhi Police's responses to Right to Information applications from 2022, the petition states that facial recognition technology was originally intended for tracing missing persons, investigating heinous crimes and identifying unidentified bodies—not for monitoring peaceful assemblies. It also claims that police treat an 80% similarity score as a positive facial recognition match despite there being no standard operating procedure governing the consequences of such identification.
The petition similarly questions the use of the NCRB's Abhigyan fingerprint application, alleging that fingerprints of people present at the protest site were collected and checked against the NAFIS database despite there being no arrest or formal criminal proceedings against them.
It also raises concerns over the involvement of private technology companies in the surveillance operation. The petition names Aditya Infotech Ltd., which supplied the Ikshana facial recognition vehicle under its CP PLUS brand, and Dimension NXG Pvt. Ltd., which supplied the AjnaLens smart glasses, alleging that no data-sharing or processing agreements governing access to protesters' biometric information have been disclosed.
The plea further alleges instances of intimidation, claiming women protesters were deliberately photographed while their clothes were soaked in rain, amounting to an invasion of their privacy and dignity. It also alleges that some young protesters were threatened that their photographs would be sent to their parents and educational institutions.
Describing the monitoring as "continuous, pervasive and multilayered", the petition argues that the surveillance fails the constitutional tests of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court in the KS Puttaswamy privacy judgments. It also contends that the biometric data is being retained indefinitely without any publicly disclosed policy governing its storage, use or destruction.
Among the reliefs sought, Rahim has asked the Supreme Court to declare the surveillance unconstitutional, prohibit the use of facial recognition technology and similar biometric surveillance tools at peaceful assemblies until a valid legal framework is enacted, direct authorities to disclose the technologies, databases and private vendors involved, permanently delete biometric data of persons not connected to any cognisable offence from NAFIS, CCTNS and allied databases, and establish a mechanism enabling affected individuals to access and seek deletion of their biometric information. The petition also seeks directions to private technology vendors to preserve and subsequently permanently delete any biometric data in their possession.