Telangana High Court notice to State on plea challenging use of Facial Recognition Technology

without regulation
SQ Masood v State of Telangana

Facts : Masood in his petition claimed that on the night of May 19 last year, he was stopped by a
group of policemen while he was returning home. The police allegedly forced him to remove his
mask and took his picture without taking his consent. Next day, he wrote to the Hyderabad police
commissioner asking him the reason why the police had taken his photographs, where they were
stored and who would have access to them.When there was no response from the police, Masood sent
a legal notice with the help of an NGO Internet Freedom Foundation on May 31. Subsequently, he
moved the high court.

Mr. Masood Legal Stands

In the petition, Mr. Masood has talked about that using FRT in Telangana violates the essential rights
assured through the Constitution, and has sought a statement that such use is unconstitutional.
Amongst different things, Mr. Masood has argued that:

 Use of FRT restricts the proper to privacy with out complying with relevant regulation: The
Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1, held that the
authorities can not restriction the proper to privacy until such limit is primarily based totally
on regulation, and it's far vital and proportionate. The use of FRT restricts privacy as through
manner of biometric facts it's far used to surveil the sports of individuals. However,
withinside the State of Telangana, no regulation empowers the government to apply FRT.
Moreover, it's far doubtful what's the goal of the deployment, and thinking about that
maximum FRT technology are inaccurate, such deployment isn't appropriate to acquire any
goal
 No procedure code : Assuming that the State of Telangana does have the electricity to
installation FRT, there have to be procedural safeguards to make certain that the electricity is
exercised in a fair, affordable and simply manner. Currently, the police in Telangana have
entire discretion in who to installation FRT on and wherein to installation FRT, aside from
covertly shooting pix via CCTV cameras. In fact, the Court of Appeals of England in R v
South Wales Police prohibited the deployment of FRT as it become left to the discretion of the
police on who/wherein to installation FRT (See from Paragraph 90).
 Deployment without ‘probable or affordable cause’: The deployment of FRT in Telangana
isn't focused or unique or slender. It is used for mass surveillance and is violative of the
essential rights of the citizens of the State of Telangana. The State of Telangana have to reveal
that there is ‘in all likelihood or affordable cause’ for deploying FRT which has the impact of
mass surveillance.

HC Order : The Telangana High Court issued notice to the State of Telangana on a plea challenging
use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) through the State and Telangana Police with out a
legitimate regulation

Public authorities & activists :Activists said the police needs to understand that people have privacy
rights also in public places. “The Supreme Court in its Aadhaar ruling clearly defined privacy as a
fundamental right which person exercises at his home and also in public places. One has a right to
move freely without being watched by the state,” said Apar Gupta, a lawyer who is also executive
director of Internet Freedom Foundation, a Delhi based advocacy group.,