How the algorithm is being targeted

This incident directly engages fundamental rights, specifically freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). However, this right is not absolute and is subject to 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19(2), such as public order, decency, or morality. The blocking of the journalist's account and the reel appears to be an exercise of power under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This section empowers the government to block public access to information under specific conditions (e.g., sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State). The Supreme Court, in the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) case, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A but emphasized that the procedure for blocking must be fair and include safeguards like a reasoned order and an opportunity for a hearing. The Delhi High Court's directive to produce the blocking orders highlights the crucial need for procedural fairness and transparency in executive actions that restrict free speech. UPSC mains questions frequently test the balance between state security/public order and individual liberties, asking candidates to critically evaluate the application of Section 69A and the lack of transparency surrounding blocking orders.

The deployment of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) by the Delhi Police raises profound governance and ethical concerns regarding mass surveillance and the right to privacy, recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017). The Supreme Court established a three-fold test for any state intrusion into privacy: legality (existence of a law), necessity (legitimate state aim), and proportionality (rational nexus between the object and the means adopted). The use of FRT for protest surveillance often fails the legality test, as India currently lacks a specific, comprehensive legal framework governing the use of FRT by law enforcement agencies. This creates a legal vacuum leading to function creep (technology deployed for one purpose being used for another). Furthermore, the inaccuracy of the FRT—as evidenced by identifying individuals who were actually in jail as being present at the protest—highlights the risks of algorithmic bias and wrongful targeting. UPSC expects candidates to analyze the governance challenges posed by emerging technologies, emphasizing the need for robust legal frameworks, algorithmic auditing, and mechanisms for accountability to prevent the creation of a surveillance state.

From an internal security perspective, state agencies argue that technologies like FRT are essential for maintaining public order, crowd control, and identifying potential miscreants in sensitive situations. However, the use of error-prone tools can be counterproductive to security objectives, leading to false positives and the harassment of innocent citizens. The opacity surrounding the blocking of content on social media platforms also touches upon the role of media and social media in internal security challenges. While the state has the authority to regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of misinformation or incitement to violence, arbitrary or politically motivated censorship undermines trust in state institutions. The lack of clear guidelines and transparent procedures for taking down content can create a chilling effect, discouraging citizens and journalists from exercising their democratic right to dissent or report on state excesses. UPSC mains questions often require an analysis of how to leverage technology for policing while ensuring it does not infringe upon civil liberties, examining the delicate balance between effective law enforcement and democratic accountability.