Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant reprimanded lawyers during a Supreme Court hearing after several advocates attempted to make their submissions simultaneously, disrupting the proceedings. Expressing displeasure over the interruptions, the CJI questioned the manner in which the lawyers were conducting themselves inside the courtroom.
"Why can't you argue one-by-one? Why are you treating court like a fish market? Don't you know I am dictating order?" CJI Surya Kant remarked, urging advocates to maintain decorum in the courtroom and allow the bench to complete its order without interruptions.
The comment came during a hearing concerning the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies during the Cockroach Janta Party protests and the accountability of protest organisers. The proceedings saw Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defending the use of surveillance technology, while the bench raised questions about whether collecting and processing such information served a legitimate interest.
-
Indian Markets Turning Corner After Two Tough Years, Says Sandeep Tandon -
Stay Invested Through Market Cycles: Raamdeo Agrawal at NDTV Profit Ignite -
Ramesh Damani Remains Bullish On India For Next 20-30 Years, Sees Bargains Amid Market Weakness -
CAS Came After A Long Consultation Process: SEBI Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey AT NDTV PROFIT IGNITE -
Aim To Cut FPI Onboarding Time From Mth To Five Days: SEBI Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey AT NDTV PROFI
Meanwhile, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the Centre's justification for using data collected through surveillance, asking whether the information gathered could be considered necessary for a legitimate State objective. The hearing featured arguments concerning the participation of foreign nationals in protests and the impact of restrictions on livelihood of citizens.
Mehta explained that when a person's face matches an existing database, authorities undertake further verification, including examining mobile tower locations and gathering information from neighbours. He maintained that the technology served as an investigative tool rather than a mechanism for indiscriminate action against protesters.
The Solicitor General also questioned objections to police surveillance when hundreds of individuals were recording and broadcasting demonstrations live.
The hearing addressed the responsibility of protest organisers and the participation of foreign nationals in political demonstrations.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani argued that organisers must be held accountable for the conduct of demonstrations. He submitted that foreign nationals, including Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders, do not enjoy the same rights as Indian citizens to participate in such movements.
During the proceedings, the bench was informed about responses submitted by authorities concerning restrictions on Delhi Metro services. A counsel appearing in one of the connected matters stated that a reply had been received from the Delhi Metro authorities, while responses from other parties were awaited.
The court subsequently issued a notice in one of the connected petitions and directed the petitioners to implead the protest organisers against whom allegations had been made, ensuring that the concerned parties could be heard before the matter proceeded further.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.