Delhi HC Asks Centre to Act on Body-Worn Camera Plea
The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to consider a PIL seeking mandatory body-worn cameras for police during protests to ensure accountability.
The Delhi High Court has stepped into the debate over police accountability, asking the Central Government to treat a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the use of body-worn cameras during protests as a formal representation. The court observed that the issue of using such technology during crowd-control operations is too significant to be dismissed as a "grey area" that requires judicial intervention.
A Push for Transparency in Policing
The PIL, filed by Chahat Raghav, seeks a mandate for the Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel to wear body-worn cameras whenever they are deployed for crowd control and protest management. Beyond just wearing the devices, the petitioner is calling for a robust legal framework to manage how the footage is stored, how long it is kept, and how it can be used as evidence in legal proceedings.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing the petitioner, argued that these cameras are essential for maintaining transparency. He noted that during protests, allegations of police misconduct are frequently met with counter-allegations from protesters. According to Sibal, while body-worn cameras are used sporadically in some instances, there is currently no clear protocol or specific mandate within the Delhi Police’s 2022 standing orders regarding rallies and demonstrations.
Court Questions the Scope of Intervention
A bench led by Acting Chief Justice Nitin Sambhre raised important questions about the role of the judiciary versus the legislature and the executive. The court pointed out that the implications of such a direction would extend far beyond the Delhi Police, affecting the entire landscape of policing in the country.
"Why should we direct them to legislate? It cannot be said that it is a grey area," the bench remarked, questioning why a judicial order was necessary when the legislature has the power to create statutory provisions for regulating police procedures.
The court emphasized that its concern is not limited to the local force but encompasses the broader standards of policing across the board. This led to a discussion on whether the executive branch should be the one to decide on the implementation of such technology.
The Government's Response and Next Steps
Representing the respondents, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma suggested that the PIL could be treated as a formal representation to the authorities, as per the High Court's rules. He also noted that the Supreme Court had previously directed authorities to frame Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for protests at Jantar Mantar, and that existing mechanisms already include videography of demonstrations.
However, the petitioner disputed this, arguing that general videography of a protest is fundamentally different from the first-person perspective provided by body-worn cameras used by officers directly engaged in crowd control.
The court has now directed the respondents to communicate their decision regarding the creation of an SOP for the use of body-worn cameras within the next six months. The petitioner has been granted the liberty to return to the High Court if the government fails to take adequate action.