A Member of Parliament has filed an Article 32 petition in the Supreme Court challenging the deployment of facial recognition technology (FRT) and biometric surveillance by police at protest sites. The petition raises concerns over violation of fundamental rights including privacy, free speech, and the right to protest. Filed before the Supreme Court of India, the case tests constitutional limits on state surveillance in public spaces and the absence of a dedicated statutory framework governing FRT use by law enforcement.

India has no dedicated legislation governing the use of facial recognition technology by state agencies, a gap that makes this petition constitutionally significant. The police deployment of FRT at protest sites effectively enables mass surveillance of citizens exercising their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21. The Supreme Court's landmark nine-judge bench ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) unanimously recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, establishing informational privacy and data protection as constitutional entitlements. FRT at protests threatens the chilling effect doctrine: when citizens know they are being biometrically identified, they may self-censor participation in constitutionally protected assembly and speech. The petition, filed under Article 32 — the constitutional remedy for enforcement of fundamental rights — asks the Supreme Court to either restrain the use of FRT or mandate a legislative framework with safeguards. India currently lacks a comprehensive data protection law calibrated to surveillance contexts; the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 largely exempts state agencies for national security and law enforcement purposes. This creates a regulatory vacuum where biometric surveillance by police operates without judicial oversight, algorithmic accountability, or redress mechanisms, raising proportionality concerns central to the Puttaswamy framework.