The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Centre to consider a representation seeking a standard operating procedure for continuous use of body-worn cameras by police and Rapid Action Force personnel deployed for crowd control and protest management.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Arun Bhardwaj disposed of the public interest litigation after the Centre agreed that the petition could be treated as a representation. The government was asked to communicate its decision to the petitioner within six months.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the authorities would examine the representation and convey their decision within the stipulated period.
The bench noted that body-worn cameras were already being used by police personnel, including traffic police, but it was informed that no specific SOP governing their use existed. The court took the ASG’s statement on record while disposing of the plea.
Plea Sought Mandatory Continuous Recording
The PIL, filed by advocate Chahat Raghav, sought the constitution of an expert committee to frame a binding SOP requiring every Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force personnel assigned to crowd-control, protest-management or dispersal duties to keep body-worn cameras continuously switched on from deployment until stand-down.
It also sought rules dealing with the storage, integrity, retention and evidentiary use of footage recorded by such cameras.
During the hearing, the bench asked how the absence of body-worn cameras affected the rights of the public.
Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that incidents of violence during protests often lead to competing allegations against protesters and police personnel. He argued that a reliable recording mechanism was necessary to determine responsibility and assess allegations of excessive use of force.
Sibal told the court that police personnel were already using cameras, but their use remained sporadic. He said an institutional recording system was required so that evidence did not depend solely on videos captured by private individuals.
The Centre, however, submitted that existing guidelines for organising protests already addressed the issue of videography.
Petition Cited July Jantar Mantar Protests
The petitioner said the case arose against the backdrop of protests held at Jantar Mantar in July involving the Cockroach Janta Party and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.
According to the plea, allegations concerning the use of force by Delhi Police and the RAF against student protesters were documented largely through unofficial mobile-phone videos recorded by bystanders.
The petition also referred to allegations of stone-pelting, vandalism and attacks on police personnel during the protests.
It contended that evidence concerning both the conduct of security personnel and alleged wrongdoing by members of the crowd depended largely on citizen-recorded footage and a limited number of fixed cameras installed at the protest site.
