Supreme Court to Examine Police Force First, Takes Up Facial Recognition Issue Separately
The Supreme Court has clarified that its primary focus during the current proceedings is to determine whether excessive force was used by the police during protests, noting that challenges surrounding the deployment of facial recognition systems (FRS) will be heard at a separate stage.
What Happened
During the court proceedings concerning police action at NEET demonstrations, advocate Hariharan submitted that the deployment of facial recognition technology by the police against protesters required distinct and separate consideration. Hariharan argued before the bench that the use of FRS violated the fundamental right to privacy, asserting that law enforcement agencies cannot deploy such technology in this manner and pointing out that data belonging to individuals other than suspects is also retained.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy also raised concerns regarding data handling, stating that private commercial entities are utilized to store the data collected through the facial recognition systems.
In response to these arguments, Solicitor General Mehta maintained that facial recognition systems are strictly intended to identify hardened criminals whose records are already cataloged with the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), rather than ordinary individuals. The Solicitor General further submitted that facial recognition operates merely as an initial identification step, which is subsequently accompanied by a field verification check concerning the individual’s whereabouts.
Addressing the submissions, Justice Bagchi stated that the bench would address the FRS controversy separately. Justice Bagchi highlighted that the subject had previously been examined on the principle of proportionality rather than under Article 21. The judge underscored that the primary objective of the ongoing hearing remains investigating whether excessive force was deployed, after which the court will examine the facial recognition aspects.
Key Highlights
- Primary Focus on Police Action: Justice Bagchi indicated that the bench’s initial objective is establishing whether excessive force was used during the demonstrations.
- Deferred FRS Scrutiny: The court confirmed that arguments regarding facial recognition systems will be taken up in a separate hearing.
- Right to Privacy Concerns: Advocate Hariharan raised objections stating that privacy rights were violated and that non-offender data continues to be retained in the systems.
- Involvement of Private Entities: Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that data captured via FRS is stored through private firms.
- Government Stance: Solicitor General Mehta maintained that FRS targets only hardened criminals listed with the NCRB, followed by physical field verification.
Why This Matters
The exchange highlights key legal friction points regarding modern crowd management and surveillance technologies during public demonstrations. By bifurcating the issue, the court distinguishes immediate physical conduct—specifically allegations of police excesses—from broader digital privacy and data storage concerns under the Constitution.
What to Watch Next
The bench is expected to continue its primary inquiry into whether excessive police force occurred during the NEET protests before listing or addressing the constitutional and proportionality questions surrounding facial recognition technology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court state regarding the priority of the hearing?
Justice Bagchi stated that the primary objective of the hearing is to examine whether excessive force was deployed by the police, after which the court will consider the facial recognition aspects.
What concerns were raised against the use of facial recognition systems?
Advocate Hariharan argued that the use of FRS infringes upon the right to privacy and that data of ordinary individuals is retained. Additionally, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy highlighted that private firms are used to store data gathered from the technology.
What was the submission made by the Solicitor General on FRS?
Solicitor General Mehta submitted that FRS captures hardened criminals already cataloged on the NCRB database rather than ordinary citizens, adding that technological identification is merely a first step followed by field verification.
Source: Based on proceedings reported by The Hindu.