Read Time: 08 minutes

On a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the deployment of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) in the State of Telangana, the Telangana High Court today issued notice to the State Government. 

The petitioner, a social activist from Hyderabad, S. Q. Masood has alleged that the deployment of FRT across the State is not backed by law, is unnecessary, disproportionate, and is being done without any safeguards in place to prevent misuse.

The matter was heard before the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili. The case will now be taken up on 15th January 2022.

Masood had moved the PIL following an incident of May 19, 2021, wherein he was stopped by 8-10 Telangana police officials in Hyderabad when he was returning home from work. Being stopped, Masood was directed to remove his mask despite the fact that the pandemic was ongoing and Hyderabad was reporting a large number of cases.

Masood had argued in his plea that though he was not accused of any infraction or had been issued any challans his photograph was taken by the police officers without his consent and without providing him any details. 

He had alleged that when being concerned as to how his picture may be used and to find out the legal basis of the actions of the police officers, he addressed a legal notice to the Police Commissioner of Hyderabad, he did not receive any answer. Thereafter only he was forced to move the High Court.

In his plea, Masood had also averred that Telangana is the most surveilled place in the world, and the State Government had been deploying 'FRT' without any legal basis for a range of purposes including but not limited to law enforcement, supplying essential services, and elections.

He had contended that when FRT is used without complying with applicable laws, it restricts the right to privacy the collected biometric data is used to surveil the activities of individuals.

In his plea, Masood had asserted that the Information technology Act 2000 provides only limited measures for safeguarding biometrics.

The plea read that section 43A of the Act and Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information Rules 2011 (SPDI Rules) bear no application to the State Agencies and thus the safeguard therein does not govern the State government's activities. 

It is here to be noted that policies on data storage, processing, retention, and use are designed by Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs while actual data gathering is left to state and central law enforcement agencies.

Masood had also pointed out that in the State of Telangana, though the State does have the power to deploy FRT no law empowers the executive to use it. He had averred that there must be procedural safeguards to ensure that the power is exercised in a fair, reasonable, and just manner.

The plea also questioned the objectivity of deployment such technology. In the plea he had stated that considering that most FRT technologies are inaccurate, such deployment is not suitable to achieve any objective.

Lastly, Masood had stressed that the FRT in the State had been deployed without complying with the rigours of the four-fold test laid down by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India (2017). 

In this case, the Apex court had ruled that any measure infringing the right to privacy of citizens must satisfy a four-fold test i.e. legality, legitimate aim, proportionality, and procedural safeguard.      

Masood had contended that the FRT as currently being deployed by the State Government is against the Apex Court's ruling and thus not backed by law at all.

Through his PIL, Masood has urged the court to declare the FRT deployment by the State Government unconstitutional and illegal. He has also sought court directions to prohibit the State from continuing to use the technology for any purposes including but not limited to law enforcement and surveillance purposes. 

Case Title: S.Q. Masood v. State of Telangana