Delhi High Court declines PIL on mandatory body cameras for police, RAF during protests

The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking compulsory, always-on body-worn cameras (BWCs) for Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel deployed for crowd-control and protest-management duties, while asking the Centre to treat the petition as a representation. A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Nitin Sambre observed that there was no legal "grey area" requiring judicial intervention and questioned why the court should direct the government to legislate on the issue. The bench questioned the need for judicial intervention, asking, "Why should we direct them to legislate?" It said the issue could not be treated as a "grey area" requiring the court's intervention. The court said that "they have provided measures by incorporating a statutory provision, as and when the legislature had some intention." The bench further asked, "why do you feel that it is necessary to have some judicial order?" and clarified that the issue was not limited to the Delhi Police, saying, "We are not concerned about Delhi police only, but we are concerned with entire policing." The PIL was filed by advocate Chahat Raghav and sought directions to the Centre, Delhi Police and RAF to formulate a binding Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) requiring personnel engaged in protest and crowd-control operations to wear and continuously operate body cameras. The plea also sought a detailed framework covering the preservation, security, retention and evidentiary use of recordings generated through the cameras. Raghav's petition invoked the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the absence of a mandatory BWC framework affects both the right to protest and protections relating to individual liberty and privacy. The petition was filed against the backdrop of protests at Delhi's Jantar Mantar in July involving the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk. The plea refers to allegations of excessive force by the Delhi Police and RAF, alongside allegations of stone-pelting, vandalism and attacks on police personnel. According to the petition, a substantial portion of the footage documenting the events was recorded on mobile phones by people present at the site rather than through an official and authenticated police recording mechanism. Raghav argued that this left evidence relating to alleged police excesses, as well as alleged violence by protesters, dependent on whether members of the public happened to record the incidents. The plea also referred to a July 22 order directing preservation of relevant material, including CCTV footage and videography, "if any". Raghav contended that this reference itself underscored the absence of a systematic mechanism requiring officers to record crowd-control operations. The petitioner maintained that mandatory body cameras could create contemporaneous and authenticated evidence on both sides of a confrontation. Such recordings, she argued, could help establish the identity of individuals allegedly involved in stone-pelting, vandalism or attacks on police personnel while also providing an objective record of police-public interactions. The petition said the 2020 advisory on body-worn cameras was recommendatory and did not make activation compulsory. It further alleged that there were no adequate provisions governing minimum retention periods, chain of custody or consequences for failing to use the cameras. Raghav also contended that the Delhi Police had procured or sought to procure BWCs but had not put in place a specific regulatory framework governing their use during crowd-control operations. The proposed safeguards included generating and preserving footage through a defined protocol, using hash values, uploading recordings to secure servers that officers wearing the cameras could not alter, maintaining an auditable chain of custody and providing certification under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The plea said the proposed system was intended to "protect both sides of the barricade". The petitioner further argued that the relief sought was limited to crowd-control situations and was intended to protect, rather than restrict, the right to protest and privacy. "The BWC is an accountability record of the police-citizen encounter and not a facial recognition dragnet of the crowd," the petition said. It also alleged that surveillance technology, including facial-recognition cameras, 360-degree surveillance vans, BWCs and riot-control vehicles, had been deployed during the Jantar Mantar protests, while footage was subsequently being used to register FIRs against protesters. The PIL therefore asked the authorities to establish a binding and enforceable BWC regime for police and RAF personnel involved in protest-management and crowd-control duties. The High Court, however, declined to issue the sought directions and asked the Centre to consider the petition as a representation.