Of 205 people examined who faced serious charges, 25 were already in jail when the system flagged them as present, a petition says. The Supreme Court has now issued notice on that plea against facial surveillance at protest sites, in a hearing that turned on what privacy a person can expect in a public place.
New Delhi: The privacy of people gathered at designated protest sites came before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, which issued notice on a petition by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in) alleging that facial recognition and surveillance tools deployed there violate the right to privacy [Software Freedom Law Centre v. Union of India & Ors.].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre. The exchanges reported below were oral; the Court has not ruled on the merits.
The question from the Bench
Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the CCTV argument as “very simplistic”, separating the mere association of a face with an individual from the later use of data gathered through surveillance. He pointed to the amendment to the Identification of Prisoners Act, which enables the State to use iris identification to detect crime, and said petitioners rarely refer to it. The Solicitor General replied that protesters are not prisoners.
“It’s about reasonable expectation of privacy. When I am standing in a public place, what’s my reasonable expectation?”
Justice Bagchi also asked whether the mere availability of footage and the collection of data could by themselves amount to a legitimate state interest. The Court then issued notice. It had earlier sought the Centre’s response on a similar petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP AA Rahim.
The Centre’s objection
Opposing the plea, Tushar Mehta asked: “Right to privacy in a public place? What kind of PILs are being filed?” He said CCTV cameras were installed at designated protest sites to prevent untoward incidents, and that accepting the petitioner’s case would mean removing cameras put up for women’s safety. He added that hundreds of social media influencers record protests live, and questioned why only government cameras were objected to. He maintained that legitimate state interest is an exception to the right to privacy.
For the petitioner, Prashant Bhushan submitted that the authorities should disclose the nature of the surveillance being carried out and the legislative framework under which it operates.
What the petition alleges
The petition alleges that the Delhi Police and other authorities used extensive surveillance to identify and track people taking part in, or intending to join, the October 10 protest at Jantar Mantar. It refers to the Delhi Police’s DP-Drishti and Ikshana surveillance vans, which it says use AI-assisted facial recognition to scan live CCTV feeds, and alleges that addresses, phone numbers and social media accounts of organisers were collected and shared among police teams, and that plainclothes personnel were posted outside the places where organisers were staying.
Citing an Indian Express investigation into facial recognition used during protests at Jantar Mantar in July 2026, the petition states that police claimed to have identified 2,873 people, and that of 205 people examined who faced serious charges, 25 were already in jail when the system flagged them as present.
SFLC seeks disclosure of the surveillance programmes and their legal basis, the safeguards against misuse of personal data, and binding guidelines on the collection, processing and sharing of citizens’ personal information. It relies on the recognition of privacy as a fundamental right and on PUCL v. Union of India (1997), which laid down safeguards for telephone interception.
ALSO READ: No Excessive Force Used, Parliament March Was Illegal: Delhi Police To Supreme Court
Why the hearing matters
Indian privacy law has largely developed around homes, phones and personal data. This petition asks the Court to decide how far that protection extends to people gathered in public to protest, and whether AI-assisted identification is a different thing from an ordinary CCTV camera.
The Bench’s questions suggest the answer may turn less on whether a face can be seen in public and more on what the State does with the data afterwards: the legal basis, the purpose, retention and sharing. Both sides’ positions, legitimate state interest on one hand and the need for statutory safeguards on the other, remain to be tested once the Centre responds.
Case Title: Software Freedom Law Centre v. Union of India & Ors. (case title and number to be verified)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union of India