The Supreme Court, while considering a batch of petitions arising out of violence surrounding the protests, heard submissions on a wide range of issues including alleged police brutality, injuries to police personnel, sexual assault and online harassment of women, facial-recognition technology, preservation of CCTV footage, FIRs against protesters and accountability of organisers.
The Court is in the process of constituting a high-powered committee to examine the factual aspects of the incidents. The Bench indicated that the committee would look into the various allegations and make recommendations, while constitutional questions would remain for the Court to determine.
The matter was heard by the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
Facial Recognition Technology Raises Surveillance And Privacy Concerns
One of the significant issues raised before the Court concerned the alleged use of facial-recognition technology to identify protesters. Senior advocate Vrindra Grover argued that the issue went beyond a mere factual inquiry and involved fundamental questions concerning privacy and the legality of collecting and processing facial data.
“
“Facial recognition software… it is amounting to surveillance. And what are they doing with the materials? And not only that, in relation to… one is collection. Apart from collection, there is processing of that material. Are they entitled to process that material? There are basic issues which I will raise. There is violation of right to privacy as far as all these issues are concerned. Privacy aspect is intimately connected to privacy. Police cannot use facial recognition… Under what statutory rules they are able to do this? There is no law. It is the statutory framework that they are using… My understanding is that the high-powered committee is a fact-finding committee. We are raising an issue of law out here.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, explained that facial recognition was being used to identify persons whose records appeared in the National Crime Records Bureau.
“
“So far as facial recognition is concerned, if you or my learned friend or anybody here passes through that, it will not capture. It will capture only those faces which are hardened criminals and their record is there in the National Crime Record Bureau. And those are the people, 2,800 and something. They are the people who are, my lord, captured by the facial recognition. Not the innocent people.”
The opposing side disputed this description of the technology and maintained that photographs of persons were being collected as part of the process. The Court also made clear that the constitutional aspect could not be delegated to the committee.
“
“Constitutionality issues will have to be, there cannot be any second opinion. There can’t be any second opinion. Constitutionality issues will have to be determined by us only. We will do best.”
Sexual Assault, Molestation And Online Harassment Of Women And Minors
On the allegations of sexual assault, molestation and online harassment of women and minors, Counsel submitted that publicly available videos showed conduct which warranted immediate action and that the State should not wait for the committee’s final report before acting.
“
“There are certain individual police officers who, in respect of whom, public videos are available of very deep concern. Committee will examine. No difficulty. However, in the interim, that should not prevent the state from taking action against them because there are police officers putting lathi in buttocks of women. That cannot be, my Lords, awaiting the outcome of this committee’s report is my respectful submission.”
The submission was followed by a discussion on whether the committee should wait until all issues were examined before making recommendations. The Court indicated that it did not want every issue to remain pending until one comprehensive report was prepared. It remarked:“Committee should immediately examine, submit a report, enabling us to take the further…”
The Court was apprised of allegations concerning sexual assault, molestation and online harassment of female victims and vulnerable minors. The Bench described these allegations as extremely serious and rejected any attempt to justify such conduct.
“
“These are very, very serious things… There cannot be any excuse. There cannot be any justification. It must be taken seriously to a logical conclusion. We are constituting a high-powered committee. That committee will look into each and every aspect of these matters. Recommendations will come. Then we will make the directions, periodical directions for giving impact to those issues… whosoever is the victim, we are with them. How can we allow in a civilized society this kind of things to happen? We must be the last person to tolerate.”
Given the allegations involving women, a suggestion was also made that the high-powered committee should include a woman officer to ensure appropriate consideration of gender-related issues.
“
“We are only suggesting that since there are issues involved with women, there should be a women officer on the committee… in order to look into the sensitivity of the issue. That’s all. It is only a suggestion.”
Alleged Violence Against Police: ‘200 Plus Policemen Sustained Serious Injuries’
The Court also heard the other side of the violence, with counsel appearing for families of injured police personnel seeking compensation. Solicitor General and counsel for families of police officers submitted that more than 200 policemen had suffered serious injuries during the violence.
“
“I am appearing for the families of the injured policemen. Our grievance… the pellet gun matter, 25.5. They have been hurt very badly… 200 plus policemen sustained serious injuries. They actually broke down the walls. They started breaking the bricks and started hitting the policemen with the bricks. There are videos to that effect. They are badly injured. There should be some compensation. Some sort of… something for the policemen also.”
The submission was made in the context of the Court’s effort to ensure that the committee’s inquiry does not focus on only one side of the violence.
Pellet Gun Victims Seek Interim Compensation
At the same time, the Court heard a plea for interim compensation for protesters who had allegedly suffered pellet-gun injuries. Counsel submitted:
“
“As far as the pellet gun matter is concerned, in 25.5, I have filed an IA for interim compensation for the victims. One of the victims is still in hospital battling an eye injury. The compensation is for all that. Two victims before my Lords. One of them is an artist. Earlier, his hands were not surgically… Now, some pellets have been removed. For some time, it’s the right hand. He’s bandaged. He’s unable to work. Interim compensation to these persons… these are young people who are earning a livelihood and are trying to make a living working. They have been impacted by this. If an interim compensation is given, I’ve moved an application before my Lords…”
Accountability Of Organisers For July 20-21 Incidents
The question of accountability of protest organisers was also raised. Counsel sought notice concerning the organisers of the July 20 events, arguing that organisers should not escape scrutiny for what occurred during the subsequent violence.
“
“For the issuance of notice [on] accountability of the organizers for July 20th, my Lord, a new precedent is being set where the organizers are not even questioned what happened on July 21, my Lord.”
The Court clarified that notices were being issued in matters coming before it and that issuance of notice did not itself amount to imposing an embargo.
Committee To Examine Both Sides Of The Violence
The hearing ultimately reflected the Court’s attempt to ensure that the proposed inquiry does not become one-sided. Allegations of excessive force, including alleged misuse of force against women and pellet-gun injuries, are to be examined alongside allegations of violence by protesters, including attacks on police personnel.
The Court has also sought a structured mechanism through nodal officers, with the objective of avoiding multiple parties making overlapping submissions and ensuring that the committee functions in an open and transparent manner.