A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking mandatory use of body-worn cameras by Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel deployed for crowd control and protest management. Filed by advocate Chahat Raghav, the plea seeks directions to the Centre, Delhi Police and RAF to frame a binding Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) requiring cameras to remain switched on during such duties.
It also seeks clear rules for the secure storage, protection, retention and evidentiary use of recorded footage. The plea comes amid allegations of misconduct during recent demonstrations in Delhi, including complaints by three women journalists who alleged sexual harassment by police personnel while covering a protest at Jantar Mantar on October 3.
Delhi Police has said the complaints have been transferred to the Crime Branch for a “fair and impartial enquiry”. Separately, the police have now issued body-worn cameras to personnel handling crowd management and security around protest sites and roads leading towards the Election Commission of India office.
Seeking Camera Rules
The petition goes beyond simply asking police personnel to carry cameras. It seeks a formal framework under which body-worn cameras would be compulsory and “always-on” for officers and RAF personnel involved in crowd-control and protest-related duties.
The petitioner has also sought safeguards governing the footage so that recordings cannot be improperly altered, deleted or accessed, while ensuring that they remain available for complaints, investigations and court proceedings when required. The demand is aimed at creating an objective record of interactions between law-enforcement personnel, protesters and others present at demonstrations.
Delhi Police has already begun issuing cameras to frontline personnel in the New Delhi area, particularly those deployed around protest sites and routes leading to the Election Commission office. A police source said the cameras would record interactions with protesters in real time and provide an objective account if complaints are subsequently made against officers or demonstrators.
Protests Raise Concerns
The PIL comes against the backdrop of heightened scrutiny of police conduct during demonstrations in the capital. On October 3, three women journalists covering a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls complained of sexual harassment by police personnel.
Delhi Police said the complaints received by the New Delhi district police were transferred to the Crime Branch for a “fair and impartial enquiry”, while officers said statements of the complainants were recorded and CCTV footage from the protest site would be examined. Delhi Police has also rejected allegations that women protesters were physically assaulted, describing such claims as “baseless and misleading”, while issuing guidelines for journalists covering protests, including carrying valid identification and ensuring that reporting does not obstruct police operations.
The developments have also resulted in further scrutiny of ACP Vivek Bhagat, who was named in one of the complaints; his additional DCP charge was subsequently withheld after he voluntarily stepped aside while the inquiry continues. Against this backdrop, the demand for body cameras reflects a wider question about how both public order and individual rights can be protected when demonstrations become tense. The technology, however, can only strengthen accountability if there are clear rules ensuring cameras are actually switched on, footage is securely preserved and legitimate access is available when disputes arise.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Peaceful protest and effective policing are not competing values; both are essential to a healthy democracy. Police personnel have the difficult responsibility of maintaining public order, while protesters and journalists must be able to exercise their rights without fear of intimidation or mistreatment. Body-worn cameras cannot replace training, restraint, dialogue or independent investigations, but a reliable and properly protected record can help establish what happened when accounts differ.
Equally, the footage must be handled with strong safeguards so that it protects the privacy and dignity of protesters, journalists and police personnel rather than becoming another source of misuse. The latest allegations should therefore be investigated fairly, without prejudging either the complainants or the officers involved. A transparent system that encourages accountability while respecting the legitimate role of law enforcement could help reduce confrontation and rebuild public trust.
Do you think mandatory body cameras, backed by strong rules for storing and reviewing footage, can make protests safer and policing more accountable?
Also Read: 150 Bangladeshi Nationals Deported From J&K After Aadhaar Data Mismatch
