The Supreme Court on Friday heard a petition raising concerns over the use of surveillance technologies such as camera traps and drones in forest and wildlife areas, particularly their impact on privacy and the consent of local and tribal communities.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior advocate Salman Khurshid clarified that the challenge was not to the use of surveillance itself but to the absence of safeguards: The petitioner, relying on a research paper, urged the Court to consider evolving guidelines to regulate such technologies and prevent misuse.
It was submitted that surveillance tools, while useful, could intrude into “private moments” of individuals living in forest areas and may disproportionately affect marginalised and tribal communities. Highlighting the lack of a regulatory framework, counsel sought the appointment of a high-powered committee and suggested:
“If Your Lordships could allow us to make a formal representation with suggested guidelines and let the authorities dispose of that within a particular period.”
The Court, however, questioned the basis and context of the concerns raised, with the Chief Justice Surya Kant making a sharp observation: “You are sitting in UK and talking about India…”
The Court underscored the necessity of surveillance for conservation purposes. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed:
“Surveillance cameras are essential for maintenance and preservation of wildlife… it can’t be under forest guards alone. We will have to use technology, drones if necessary.”
The petitioner pointed out complexities in obtaining informed consent from tribal populations, especially in light of evolving data protection frameworks: “How do we get the consent… many of these marginalised tribal groups, giving consent is a very complicated procedure.” However, the bench observed that this can be done with possible involvement of Gram Sabhas in decisions affecting local populations.
The Court permitted the petitioner to submit a formal representation to the relevant authorities along with proposed principles for “socially responsible use of conservation monitoring.” Authorities were expected to consider and respond within a reasonable timeframe.
“The entire petition is based on a research paper and the petitioner has not approached the authorities….the petitioner may approach the authorities, including the Ministry…, and we have no doubt it will be duly considered.”
Appearances
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Prashanto Chandra Sen and Salman Khurshid