Delhi HC asks Centre to decide on SOP for police body-worn cameras in 6 months
The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to take a decision within six months on framing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the use of body-worn cameras by police personnel.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Arun Bhardwaj passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Chahat Raghav. The petition sought guidelines on the use of such cameras by Delhi Police, including procedures for their operation, storage of recorded footage and access to the data.
The court, however, declined to issue any immediate directions. It asked the authorities to treat the petition as a representation and communicate their decision on framing an SOP within six months.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Akhil Sibal argued that the absence of a clear procedure had led to inconsistencies in the use of body-worn cameras. He said the devices were being used sporadically without a defined mechanism for preserving footage, maintaining its chain of custody or regulating who could access it.
Sibal contended that a proper SOP would help address concerns relating to accountability, privacy and possible misuse of the technology. He said body-worn cameras differed from facial recognition systems but still required safeguards to prevent surveillance and profiling.
“There has to be an SOP, until there is some sort of law… if we have a mechanism or defined way of using it, then it will go a long way in addressing some of these concerns,” he submitted.
The senior advocate also referred to reports that Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force personnel deployed during the SIR protests had been directed to wear body cameras following allegations of police excesses.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, suggested that the plea could be considered as a representation before the government.
Sibal opposed the suggestion, arguing that the authorities were already aware of the use of body-worn cameras and should place a response before the court. He said merely treating the matter as a representation would not serve any purpose.
In its order, the court noted that the use of body-worn cameras by police could be inferred from tenders issued for the devices and their use by the traffic police. It observed that no SOP appeared to be in place and that the police manual might not contain provisions on the matter.
Taking note of the Centre’s submission, the bench directed the respondents to communicate their decision on framing an SOP for the use of body-worn cameras within six months.