SOP on Body Cams: Delhi HC Directs Govt To Decide Within 6 Months On Body-Worn Cameras For Police, RAF

The Delhi High Court has directed the government to decide within six months on a proposal to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for mandatory use of body-worn cameras by Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel during protests and crowd-control operations.

A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Arun Bhardwaj passed the order while disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Chahat Raghav. The plea was filed against the backdrop of the July 2026 protests at Jantar Mantar involving the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.

Court Treats PIL As Representation

The court directed the government to treat the petition as a representation and take a decision on the proposed SOP within six months.

Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the existing Delhi Police system primarily relies on third-person videographers positioned around protest sites. He submitted that this does not provide a contemporaneous record of the actions of individual personnel involved in crowd-control operations.

Sibal argued that body-worn cameras could improve transparency and help establish accountability during protests and other crowd-control duties.

Centre Says Existing Guidelines Cover Videography

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, agreed that the issue could be considered as a representation. He said the government would communicate its decision within six months.

The Centre also pointed to existing guidelines governing protests and said videography was already covered under the current framework. It submitted that the petitioner could approach the authorities with a representation seeking a specific SOP for body-worn cameras.

The submission came after the Centre referred to a Supreme Court judgment and Delhi High Court rules, under which a representation to the concerned authorities was required before invoking the court’s PIL jurisdiction.

Plea Filed After July Jantar Mantar Protests

The petition was filed following clashes during protests at Jantar Mantar in July 2026. The demonstrations resulted in injuries to student protesters as well as more than 50 police and paramilitary personnel.

The petitioner alleged that the incidents exposed a “systemic vacuum”, claiming there was no binding rule, standing order or SOP requiring police or RAF personnel to wear body cameras during crowd-control duties.

The plea also sought a framework governing the storage, retention, integrity and evidentiary use of footage recorded by such cameras.

Body Cameras Sought For Accountability

According to the petition, officer-worn cameras could provide contemporaneous and tamper-proof footage that could help establish accountability in cases involving alleged excessive use of force.

The petitioner also argued that such recordings could provide authenticated evidence to identify and prosecute protesters accused of violence or vandalism.

The plea claimed that Delhi Police had recognised the potential need for body-worn cameras during protests as early as January 2020. It also referred to Delhi Police Standing Order No. L&O/10/2022 on the regulation of rallies and processions, arguing that the existing system provides for third-person videography but does not make body-worn cameras mandatory for personnel deployed for crowd control.

Delhi Police, CRPF Procurement Cited

The petitioner further claimed that Delhi Police had floated a tender for 1,500 body-worn cameras at an estimated cost of around ₹7.4 crore.

The plea also stated that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) had initiated procurement of 480 body-worn cameras for the RAF.

The petitioner sought directions for a binding SOP making body-worn cameras compulsory and continuously operational for police and RAF personnel deployed for protest management and crowd-control duties. It also sought clear rules for storing and preserving the footage and using it as evidence.

With the government agreeing to consider the issue and communicate its decision within six months, the Delhi High Court disposed of the PIL.