SG Tushar Mehta Defends NEET Protest Surveillance Before Delhi High Court; Says Videography Essential for Law And Order

The Delhi High Court has heard arguments on the legality of continuous videography and facial recognition of student protesters at Jantar Mantar during NEET protests. The court is considering whether these measures violate the fundamental right to privacy, with a further hearing scheduled for July 27.

The Delhi High Court recently heard detailed arguments from SG Tushar Mehta on the surveillance of NEET protestants at Jantar Mantar, with Mehta defending the use of videography as essential for maintaining law and order. This development is significant because it highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between individual privacy rights and the need for public safety measures during protests.

The right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Indian Constitution, with Article 21 protecting individuals from arbitrary deprivation of life or personal liberty. However, the state also has a duty to maintain law and order, which may sometimes require the use of surveillance measures. In this case, the Delhi High Court is considering whether the continuous videography and facial recognition of student protesters at Jantar Mantar are proportionate to the need for public safety.

The arguments presented by SG Tushar Mehta in defense of the surveillance measures highlight the ongoing tension between individual privacy rights and the need for public safety during protests. While the use of videography may be seen as a necessary measure to maintain order, it also raises concerns about the potential invasion of individuals' right to privacy. The court's consideration of this issue is timely, given the increasing use of surveillance technologies in public spaces.

The Delhi High Court's further hearing on July 27 will be closely watched by legal professionals and civil society organizations. The outcome of this matter has not yet been reported, but it is likely to have significant implications for the balance between individual privacy rights and the need for public safety measures during protests.