Privacy Claim At Protest Site 'Ironical': Centre Opposes PIL In Delhi HC Over Videography Of CJP Protests
· Free Press Journal
New Delhi, July 25, 2026: The Central government on Friday defended the videography of protests at Delhi's Jantar Mantar, telling the Delhi High Court that claiming a right to privacy at a public protest site was "ironical". It argued that videography is a routine practice carried out at every protest to maintain law and order and is backed by official standing orders as well as judicial directions.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the issuance of notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU) president Aishe Ghosh.
Visit mchezo.co.za for more information.
The petition alleges that Delhi Police has been carrying out continuous and intrusive surveillance of protesters associated with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and others at Jantar Mantar, Bar and Bench reports.
Centre Defends Videography
Mehta told a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia that videography is not specific to CJP protests but is conducted during every demonstration at the venue as a standard law-and-order measure.
"This videography is done for every protest. You go there any time, people are doing videography, influencers are there making reels, media taking interviews. It is ironical that they are claiming privacy. This is absolutely necessary and in legitimate state interest," Mehta submitted.
He also argued that CJP's own social media handle regularly encourages supporters to record events on their mobile phones. "We are getting hundreds of reels made there. There is nothing called privacy in that," he said.
Petitioner Raises Concerns
Appearing for Ghosh, Senior Advocate Nandita Rao argued that there is a fundamental difference between videos recorded by journalists or protesters and surveillance carried out by the State.
She said the government was creating a false equivalence by comparing police videography with recordings made by private individuals.
"There is a difference between a journalist and the State. Journalists and other people making videos can be sued for defamation, but when the State is doing it, it is a false equivalence. They are recording private conversations," Rao submitted.
She further argued that State authorities have powers that private citizens do not, including the ability to use such recordings for official action. "Can a private individual arrest someone based on these videos? Can they ask a college not to admit students?" she asked.
Rao also questioned the lack of safeguards governing the storage and use of the recorded data. She said there was no clear protocol on where the footage is stored, how long it is retained, or when it is destroyed. "All we are seeking is a procedure and protocol to ensure the data is protected and not misused," she argued.
Referring to media reports, Rao also raised concerns over the alleged use of facial recognition technology by the police. She said reports suggest the technology is only 70 per cent to 80 per cent accurate and warned that an incorrect match could have serious consequences. "Based on an 80 per cent match, a person can be an undertrial for years," she submitted.
Also Watch:
Dharmendra Pradhan Resigns As Education Minister: Priyanka Chopra, Varun Dhawan, Alia Bhatt, Vicky Kaushal & Other Celebs REACTMatter Listed For Hearing
After briefly hearing the matter, the Bench listed the case for further consideration on July 27.
Along with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit appeared for the Central government.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/