wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Delhi Police division denies it used drones to film CAA protestors

The Delhi Police, in response to two Right to Information requests filed by MediaNama about its usage of drones to film protestors of the Citizenship Amendment Act, has given the following responses:

1. The North District division, in response to the first RTI, said that the police of Police Station Kotwali in Red Fort, did not use drones “for videography,” on December 19, 2019, to record protestors. This, despite a PTI report from the same day, claiming that the Delhi Police used drones to keep track of people protesting against CAA, who had gathered at Red Fort in Old Delhi (which falls under the North District) to Shaheed Park near ITO.

MediaNama’s take: Our RTI query was not specifically about the North District of the Delhi Police using drones, but about the usage of drones by the Delhi Police, as an institution. One division’s denial, doesn’t necessarily mean that police from other divisions did not use drones to record protestors in Delhi. It’s also not clear whether any other government departments were using drones to film protestors, or even if the central government was using drones.

2. The North District division, in response to the second RTI said that no drone was used for videography by “the police of North District,” on December 18, 2019 to record protestors. Note that the first response specifies a particular particular police station, while this talks about all police stations in the North District.

MediaNama’s take: Even if the North District of the Delhi Police wasn’t using drones, it’s doesn’t mean that other divisions of the Delhi Police might not have been using drones. Secondly, it’s also not clear whether any other government departments – whether Central government, or from Delhi Police – were using drones to film protestors.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

3. The North East division of the Delhi Police in response to the first RTI said that “no such data is being maintained in the district”. However, another PTI report had claimed that drones were indeed used in the Seelampur area, which falls under the North East District, after protests against the Act in Seelampur had reportedly taken a violent turn.

As per current regulations around drone usage, a clearance is required before a drone takes off. It’s not clear why this division of the Delhi Police doesn’t maintain a copy of the clearance orders.

We had filed 2 separate RTIs with the Delhi Police. The first RTI cited a PTI report from December 19, 2019, while the second one relied on a DNA India report from December 18. The RTIs got transferred to the following jurisdictions of the Delhi Police: North, North East, West, Rohini, Dwarka, South West, and East. Apart from the former 2 districts, the other districts claimed that our RTI did not relate to their jurisdictions, and disposed them. Both the RTIs did not get forwarded to the following Delhi Police districts: Central, IGI Airport, EOW, Metro, New Delhi, North West, Outer, Railway, Shahdara, South, and South East. 

What our questions were about: As pointed out above, the questions we had raised in the RTI were neither about a particular division of the Delhi Police using drones, nor were they limited to the Red Fort area, or the Seelampur area. Some of the questions we had asked:

  • The authorisation letters for the Delhi Police to record protestors
  • The size/amount/length of the captured footage
  • How long recorded footage is to be stored, and where
  • If these recordings were fed into a facial recognition system
  • If the footage will be shared with the Home Ministry, or any other third-parties.




Written By

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ