Delhi HC Hears PIL on Protester Surveillance vs Right to Privacy
UPSC / SSC current affairs note · Polity
Why in news
The Delhi High Court heard a PIL challenging the surveillance of protesters at Jantar Mantar, including videography and facial recognition. The case pits the right to privacy against the state's claim of maintaining public order.
Background
Jantar Mantar in Delhi is a designated protest site. The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Centre has been using surveillance measures to monitor protests, citing law and order concerns.
Key facts
Delhi HC heard a PIL challenging surveillance of protesters at Jantar Mantar.
Petitioner argued surveillance violates the right to privacy under the Puttaswamy judgment.
Centre defended videography and facial recognition as necessary for maintaining public order.
The case involves balancing fundamental rights with state's duty to maintain law and order.
Jantar Mantar is a designated protest site in Delhi.
Prelims pointers
- Puttaswamy judgment (2017): Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
- Delhi High Court: High Court of Delhi.
- PIL: Public Interest Litigation.
- Jantar Mantar: Designated protest site in Delhi.
Mains angles
- GS2 Polity: Right to Privacy vs Public Order - discuss the constitutional balance.
- GS2 Judiciary: Role of judiciary in protecting fundamental rights against state surveillance.
- GS2 Governance: Surveillance laws and their proportionality in a democracy.