Supreme Court agrees to take up MP’s plea against use of face-recognition tech on NEET-UG protesters
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a petition challenging the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) and other biometric surveillance tools by police at protest sites, filed in connection with demonstrations linked to the NEET-UG examination irregularities.
The petition was filed by a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, who argued that deploying FRT, vehicle-mounted surveillance technology, and covert data collection against peaceful protesters, students, and journalists at a public gathering was unconstitutional in the absence of a specific regulating law.
The plea contends that biometric data of demonstrators was collected without consent and subsequently hosted by private entities, and seeks a restraint on law enforcement from using FRT and biometric surveillance at peaceful public gatherings until Parliament enacts a specific regulatory law.
A bench led by the Chief Justice of India tagged this petition with other pending petitions arising from the same student protests, meaning the matter will be heard alongside related cases rather than in isolation.
Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right — K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held on 24 August 2017 that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 (and as part of the freedoms guaranteed under Part III generally) of the Constitution. The judgment overruled earlier decisions (M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh) that had held there was no fundamental right to privacy. The Court held that any state action infringing privacy must satisfy a three-fold test: legality (existence of a law), legitimate state aim, and proportionality (the means must be proportionate to the objective, with the least restrictive alternative preferred).
Key Details
- Case: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, decided 24 August 2017.
- Bench strength: nine judges, unanimous decision.
- Test for state intrusion into privacy: legality, legitimate aim, proportionality (and later, necessity, per subsequent jurisprudence).
- Arose originally from a challenge to the mandatory linking of Aadhaar to welfare schemes.
The petition's core constitutional argument rests on Puttaswamy — that covert facial recognition and biometric surveillance of protesters, without their consent and without a specific enabling law, fails the "legality" prong of the proportionality test, since no dedicated statute currently authorises FRT use by police in India.
Article 19(1)(b) — Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Its Restrictions
Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, covering public meetings, demonstrations, and processions. This right is not absolute; Article 19(3) permits the state to impose "reasonable restrictions" in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. Courts have held that covert, non-transparent surveillance of participants at a lawful assembly can have a "chilling effect," deterring citizens from exercising this right even without a formal restriction being imposed.
Key Details
- Article 19(1)(b): right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
- Article 19(3): permits reasonable restrictions on this right, on stated grounds only (sovereignty/integrity of India, public order).
- "Chilling effect" doctrine: surveillance short of a formal ban can still unconstitutionally deter the exercise of a fundamental right.
The petition frames mass facial-recognition surveillance of NEET-UG protesters not as a direct ban on assembly but as an indirect, chilling deterrent to the Article 19(1)(b) right, since participants may avoid future protests knowing they will be biometrically tracked and profiled.
Regulatory Gap: Facial Recognition Technology and the DPDP Act, 2023
India currently has no dedicated statute specifically regulating police use of facial recognition technology. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 — India's principal data protection law, with its Rules notified in 2025 — governs the processing of personal data broadly and creates obligations for "Significant Data Fiduciaries," but it was not designed to specifically address the constitutional concerns raised by state deployment of AI-based facial recognition for policing and surveillance. A private member's bill, the Facial Recognition Technology (Regulation of Police Powers) Bill, proposing magistrate-level authorisation for police FRT use, remains pending in Parliament and has not been enacted.
Key Details
- DPDP Act, 2023: India's core data protection law; Rules notified in 2025.
- No dedicated FRT-specific statute exists for police surveillance use in India.
- A pending private member's bill has proposed judicial (magistrate-level) authorisation for police FRT deployment; not yet law.
The absence of a specific law is precisely the gap the petitioner relies on to argue the state action fails the "legality" requirement under the Puttaswamy proportionality test — a live illustration of how a regulatory vacuum for a fast-deploying technology can become the central constitutional battleground.
- Puttaswamy judgment: 24 August 2017, nine-judge bench, unanimous, recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Three-fold test from Puttaswamy for privacy-infringing state action: legality, legitimate aim, proportionality.
- Article 19(1)(b): freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms; restrictable only under Article 19(3) grounds.
- DPDP Act, 2023: India's data protection law; Rules notified in 2025; does not specifically regulate FRT.
- The Facial Recognition Technology (Regulation of Police Powers) Bill remains a pending private member's bill, not enacted law.
- The Supreme Court bench that agreed to hear the plea was led by the Chief Justice of India, sitting with two other judges.