The petition filed by Aishe Ghosh alleges that since the commencement of the Cockroach Janta Party's sit‑in protest and hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on 20 June 2026, protesters have been under round‑the‑clock watch through a permanent surveillance tower installed at the site. The pleading contends that the monitoring is indiscriminate, covering every individual present irrespective of any suspicion of unlawful activity. It further asserts that the surveillance extends to ordinary daily acts such as eating, resting and seeking medical assistance.
The petitioner claims that police personnel have repeatedly threatened student protesters that photographs and videos taken at the protest site would be forwarded to their parents, guardians and the authorities of their respective educational institutions. According to the plea, such threats have created an atmosphere of fear and have deterred students from participating in the protest or expressing their views openly. The petition argues that the threatened use of surveillance material to identify and expose protesters transforms passive monitoring into an instrument of coercion, thereby chilling the exercise of rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Additional allegations include the continued photography and videography of women protesters during heavy rainfall when they remained at the site in drenched clothes due to inadequate shelter, which the petitioner says amounts to a serious invasion of bodily privacy and dignity. The pleading also states that police personnel have conducted route marches through the protest site and have stopped vehicles carrying protesters for questioning, thereby creating an intimidating environment and portraying peaceful demonstrators as engaged in unlawful activity.
Submissions by the Delhi Police
Appearing for the Delhi Police, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia that the measures in question were undertaken solely to maintain law and order and did not amount to surveillance or snooping. Mehta submitted that at Jantar Mantar, some or the other protest is always taking place and that every protest is routinely recorded. He emphasised that in the present instance hundreds of people are seen making videos and reels and making them viral, and that the police activity is limited to ensuring law and order.
Mehta described the petition as luxury litigation and opposed the allegations levelled against the police. He maintained that there is no snooping and no surveillance, asserting that the police actions are justified by the necessity of preserving public order.
Observations by the Court
During the hearing, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and inquired whether any standard operating procedure or guidelines exist to regulate protests and hunger strikes. The Bench sought clarification on the existence of any regulatory framework that governs the conduct of demonstrations at designated sites such as Jantar Mantar.
The Court has not passed any interim order at this stage and has listed the matter for further hearing on Tuesday. The Division Bench indicated that it will examine the allegations of indiscriminate monitoring, the alleged threats to forward visual material to educational authorities, and the impact on the fundamental rights of protesters.
Reliefs Sought by the Petitioner
The petition seeks a declaration that the alleged continuous and intrusive mass surveillance of peaceful protesters at a designated protest site is unconstitutional, disproportionate and cannot be justified on the ground of maintaining public order or national security. It further seeks a declaration that the installation of a permanent surveillance tower and the blanket deployment of videographers at Jantar Mantar fail the constitutional test of the least restrictive means.
Among the interim reliefs requested is a direction suspending all mass photography, videography and surveillance at Jantar Mantar until the authorities establish a proximate, real and imminent threat to public order. The petitioner also asks for protection against the use of surveillance material to identify and expose protesters, and for safeguards to prevent intimidation of women demonstrators.
Next Steps
The matter is now scheduled for detailed arguments on Tuesday, when both sides will be expected to address the Court's questions regarding the existence of standard operating procedures for protests and the proportionality of the police measures. The outcome of the hearing will determine whether interim directions are issued to curb the alleged surveillance pending a final adjudication on the constitutional validity of the police actions.