Among these 350 cameras were 100 specialised ones, which would ping the police when it identified a person not wearing a mask. The mechanism worked in such a way that a personnel would be deployed by the control room to impose a penalty on the violator, and also give that violator a mask.

This scale is nothing compared to our neighbour beyond the Himalayas — China — which is somewhat of a surveillance state with over 700 million cameras keeping a watchful eye on its citizens.

While the extent of surveillance in India isn’t as pronounced as in China, the lotus nation’s surveillance journey is embedded deep in its history. It started with the British colonial administration, which laid the foundation for many modern state surveillance practices to suppress dissent.

After the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny — which India calls its First War of Independence — the British intensified their surveillance to prevent further uprisings. A notable example was the Cunningham Circular of 1907, which required educational institutions to report students involved in political activities. This systematic scrutiny of the Indian students — via informants, dossiers, and spies — set a precedent for State surveillance in independent India.

India, Today

India is now at the cusp of a new surveillance era, powered by AI and vast networks of cameras. Under the ambitious Smart Cities Mission, over 83,000 CCTV cameras have been installed across 100 cities, as per government reports. 

These are not static cameras, but come equipped with tools like automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) and AI-driven analytics, enabling proactive crime detection and traffic management.

Cities like Pune have become testing grounds for AI-enabled policing, where cameras assist in monitoring traffic, detecting crimes and aiding investigations. Airports like Hyderabad’s Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, have introduced AI-powered boarding systems, promising efficiency but raising concerns about privacy and data retention. The Ministry of Railways is also introducing AI and facial recognition technology (FRT) cameras inside trains. Positioned at every entry and exit point, these cameras will capture and process passenger data — including facial images — in real-time, with the stated aim of curbing crime.

The system works by cropping facial images from live feeds and sending them to a central server for analysis and storage. While this enhances crime prevention capabilities, it also raises alarming questions: Who oversees this vast data trove? How long is the data stored, and under what safeguards? Are passengers adequately informed about being subjected to surveillance?  

The Missing Link In India’s Surveillance Programme: Data Privacy

India’s data protection laws remain fragmented. Unlike in the European Union, which has comprehensive regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), India stands at the risk of transforming public spaces into zones of constant monitoring, similar to what has happened in China.

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, passed over a year ago, is yet to be fully implemented, leaving citizens vulnerable to data misuse. This, despite the landmark 2017 Supreme Court judgment in Justice K S Puttaswamy (retd.) and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors., which established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. 

Retired Justice K S Puttaswamy, along with others, had filed a petition challenging the Aadhaar scheme. They argued that Aadhaar's mandatory collection of biometric data violated the right to privacy. This brought into focus whether privacy was a constitutionally protected right in India.

The court ruled in the petitioners’s favour that the right to privacy protects a person's personal information, communication, decisions, movements, personal choices, partners and eating habits. It also protects a person from surveillance in their homes and over their movements. The judgment also underscored that privacy intrusions must be lawful, necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim.

However, the definition of surveillance has expanded far beyond traditional ways of monitoring. Today, it includes FTR, AI cameras, location tracking and social media monitoring.

Proponents argue that these tools can reduce crime, streamline urban management and improve public safety. Critics, however, warn that they could easily be weaponised to target dissenters or marginalised groups, as seen in the case of the CAA-NRC protests of 2020. 

In 2020-2021, RTI requests to Delhi Police regarding their use of FRT were initially denied under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Following appeals, the Central Information Commission directed Delhi Police to provide revised responses, revealing that FRT was used in cases like the North-East Delhi riots, Lal Qila riots, and Jahangirpuri riots.

The Delhi Police said that matches above 80 per cent similarity were deemed positive, while those below were treated as false positives, but could still be investigated further. 

They also admitted they didn’t conduct any privacy assessments, though they claim to respect citizen's privacy.

The Road Ahead

In this rapidly evolving digital landscape, it is imperative that people have a say in the rules governing their own surveillance. Public consultation and transparent policymaking are essential to ensure that surveillance technologies are used ethically, and do not infringe upon individual rights.

Without such participation, there is a risk of unchecked surveillance systems disproportionately targeting vulnerable communities and eroding trust in democratic institutions. To uphold the spirit of Puttaswamy, India must prioritise citizen's involvement in shaping data protection laws and ensure robust safeguards against misuse.