Delhi Police says Jantar Mantar protest videography is for law and order, not surveillance
The Delhi Police has denied allegations of surveillance at the Jantar Mantar protest site, stating that any recording is only meant to maintain law and order. The police made this submission during a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Aishe Ghosh, who has challenge…
Intelligence analysis by Llama
The Delhi Police has denied allegations of surveillance at the Jantar Mantar protest site, stating that any recording is only meant to maintain law and order. The police made this submission during a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Aishe Ghosh, who has challenged the alleged continuous and intrusive police monitoring of the protest.
Imagine you're at a big protest in Delhi, and the police are recording everything that's happening. They say it's just to keep the peace, but some people are worried that the police might be watching them too closely. This is a big issue because people have the right to protest and express themselves, but they also have the right to be safe and not be watched all the time.
Analysis
Police Deny Snooping Allegations
The Delhi Police has denied allegations of surveillance at the Jantar Mantar protest site, stating that any recording is only meant to maintain law and order. The police made this submission during a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Aishe Ghosh, who has challenged the alleged continuous and intrusive police monitoring of the protest.
Appearing for the police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, "At Jantar Mantar, some or the other protest is going on. Every protest is always recorded. In this protest, as a matter of fact, hundreds of people are seen making videos and reels and making them viral. This is only for the purpose of law and order. There is no snooping. There is no surveillance."
The Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia asked the Centre whether it had framed any standard operating procedure (SOP) or guidelines for handling protests and hunger strikes, referring to the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India.
Questions Over Collected Footage
During the hearing, Ghosh's counsel questioned the legal basis for the recording and asked what would happen to the footage already collected. "The data they have collected since June 20. How will they dispose it of, how will it be protected? Is there a committee to see it? Can any police officer just be using it for any purpose?" the counsel asked.
The PIL and Its Demands
The petition seeks directions to immediately stop the alleged surveillance, require authorities to disclose its legal basis and data retention policy, preserve the collected records until the court decides the case, frame guidelines for policing peaceful protests, and set up an independent committee to examine the impact of such surveillance on the constitutional right to dissent.
The case highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in policing peaceful protests. The Delhi Police's submission has sparked concerns about the potential for surveillance and the need for clear guidelines on handling protests.
Key points
- The Delhi Police has denied allegations of surveillance at the Jantar Mantar protest site.
- The police say any recording is only meant to maintain law and order.
- A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed by Aishe Ghosh challenging the alleged continuous and intrusive police monitoring of the protest.
- The petition seeks directions to immediately stop the alleged surveillance and require authorities to disclose its legal basis and data retention policy.
If the Delhi Police can establish clear guidelines for handling protests and demonstrate transparency in their surveillance practices, it could help build trust between the police and the public. This could lead to more peaceful and productive protests, and a better understanding of the role of law enforcement in maintaining public order.
If the Delhi Police continues to deny allegations of surveillance and fails to provide clear guidelines for handling protests, it could lead to further mistrust and tension between the police and the public. This could result in more protests turning violent, and a breakdown in the relationship between the police and the community.
