Delhi HC Refuses To Mandate Body Cameras For Police, RAF During Protests; Directs Centre To Decide On SOP Within 6 Months
· Free Press Journal
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, declined to issue directions making body-worn cameras mandatory for Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel deployed for crowd-control and protest-management duties, Live Law reported.
Visit saltysenoritaaz.com for more information.
However, the court directed the Centre to treat a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking such a framework as a representation and take a decision on framing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) within six months.
The court said its decision should be communicated to the petitioner and granted liberty to approach the court again in case of inaction.
Court Declines To Issue Mandatory Directions
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Arun Bhardwaj was hearing a PIL filed by Chahat Raghav in the matter of Chahat Raghav v. Union of India and Others.
The petition sought judicial directions requiring police and RAF personnel deployed for crowd-control and protests to wear body-worn cameras that would remain switched on throughout their duties.
The plea also sought a comprehensive framework governing the storage, retention, integrity and evidentiary use of footage recorded through the cameras.
The bench, however, declined to directly mandate such a requirement.
'No Grey Area' Requiring Judicial Intervention
During the hearing, the court observed that the issue concerned policing as a whole and was not restricted only to the Delhi Police.
The bench also observed that there was “no grey area” requiring judicial intervention on the issue.
The court questioned why it should direct authorities to legislate or frame procedures when statutory mechanisms already exist for regulating police procedures in areas where the legislature has chosen to do so.
Centre To Decide On SOP Within Six Months
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the PIL could be treated as a representation and that a decision would be communicated within six months.
The court recorded the submission and disposed of the PIL with the direction that the government consider the issue within the stipulated period.
The petitioner has been given liberty to return to the court if there is no action on the representation.
PIL Filed After July Protests At Jantar Mantar
The petition was filed in the aftermath of demonstrations at Delhi's Jantar Mantar in July 2026 involving the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.
The plea alleged that excessive force was used by police and RAF personnel during crowd-control operations. It also mentioned that much of the footage available from the demonstrations had been recorded by bystanders on mobile phones rather than through official body-worn cameras.
The petitioner argued that mandatory camera use could provide an independent record of police conduct during protests and crowd-control situations.
Petition Cited Fundamental Rights
The plea invoked Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution, relating to freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peacefully and the protection of life and personal liberty.
It also referred to existing initiatives and tenders for body-worn cameras by the Delhi Police, while pointing to their limited use in areas such as traffic enforcement.
Delhi HC Dismisses PIL Over Conflicting Claims Of Lathi-Charge During NEET-Related CJP ProtestThe petition sought an “always-on” body-camera requirement for personnel deployed for protest and crowd-control duties, along with rules governing how the footage would be stored, retained and used as evidence.
Court Leaves Policy Decision To Government
With Wednesday's order, the High Court has not made body-worn cameras compulsory for police or RAF personnel during protests.
Instead, the government will now have six months to examine the demand for an SOP and communicate its decision to the petitioner. The court has left the door open for further judicial proceedings if the petitioner alleges inaction after that period.