New Delhi, Oct 7: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the government to treat a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking mandatory use of body-worn cameras by Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel deployed for crowd control and protest management duties as a representation.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Arun Bhardwaj directed the government to take a decision within six months on the framing of a standard operating procedure (SOP) concerning the use of body-worn cameras by police and RAF personnel during protests and crowd-control operations.

The High Court passed the order while disposing of a PIL filed by advocate Chahat Raghav in the aftermath of the July 2026 demonstrations at Jantar Mantar involving the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.

Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Delhi Police’s existing framework relies on third-person videographers positioned along the periphery and does not provide an adequate mechanism for contemporaneous recording of actions by personnel deployed for crowd control.

He argued that the availability of technology for body-worn cameras could go a long way in ensuring transparency and fixing accountability during crowd-control operations.

“If technology is available, it can go a long way in fixing accountability whenever required. It is different from facial recognition where there are concerns of surveillance,” the senior counsel argued.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the petition could be treated as a representation and that a decision would be communicated within six months.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment and the Delhi High Court rules, ASG Sharma said that a representation was required to be made to the authorities concerned before invoking the PIL jurisdiction.

The Centre also submitted that guidelines were already in place for organising protests and that videography was covered under the existing framework. It said the petitioner could make a representation seeking framing of an SOP for the use of body-worn cameras, which could be considered in accordance with law.

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

The plea was filed against the backdrop of clashes during the July protests at Jantar Mantar, which resulted in injuries to student protesters as well as more than 50 police and paramilitary personnel.

According to the petition, the events exposed a “systemic vacuum” as there was no rule, regulation, standing order or SOP mandating police or RAF personnel to wear body-worn cameras while deployed on crowd-control duties, or governing the storage, integrity, retention and evidentiary use of such footage. The petitioner said the July 2026 protests had seen allegations of disproportionate use of force by police, while there were also allegations of attacks on police personnel and vandalism by some protesters.

It submitted that a contemporaneous and tamper-proof officer’s-eye recording could help fix accountability for alleged excesses by the police and also provide authenticated evidence to identify and prosecute persons in the crowd who resorted to violence.

The plea further claimed that Delhi Police had itself recognised the need for body-worn cameras during protests as far back as January 2020, but had not translated that recognition into a binding and effective regime. It referred to Delhi Police Standing Order No. L&O/10/2022 concerning regulation of rallies and processions, submitting that the existing framework provides for third-person videography but does not mandate body-worn cameras for personnel engaged in crowd control.

The petition also claimed that Delhi Police had floated a tender for procurement of 1,500 body-worn cameras at a total value of around Rs 7.4 crore, while the CRPF had initiated procurement of 480 such cameras for the RAF. The petitioner sought directions for framing and enforcement of a binding SOP mandating compulsory, always-on body-worn cameras for police and RAF personnel deployed on crowd-control and protest-management duties, along with a data-storage, integrity and evidentiary regime governing the footage.

New Delhi, Oct 7: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed actor and comedian Rajpal Yadav to deposit Rs 1.15 crore with the apex court registry after his counsel submitted that the amount was ready to be deposited immediately, while another Rs 85 lakh would be arranged through a prospective buyer of his ancestral property, as part of arrangements to pay Rs 2 crore in connection with multiple cheque dishonour cases.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing Yadav and his wife Radha Yadav’s pleas challenging the Delhi High Court judgment upholding their conviction in seven cheque dishonour cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

During the hearing, the CJI Kant-led Bench was informed that Yadav had arranged Rs 1.15 crore through demand drafts, while a prospective buyer of his ancestral property, who was present in court, was willing to pay another Rs 85 lakh as an advance.

Yadav’s counsel told the top court that the buyer was not presently willing to register the sale documents due to Pitru Paksha and wanted to proceed with the registration after the commencement of Navratri.

The counsel further submitted that the buyer was willing to deposit the Rs 85 lakh by way of a demand draft on Monday. However, the Supreme Court questioned the overall value of the transaction, remarking that the liability was substantially higher than Rs 2 crore.

“What will be the total sale consideration? Because the liability is much more than Rs 2 crore,” the CJI Kant-led Bench asked.

The counsel said the property was valued at more than Rs 30 crore and confirmed that the prospective buyer had the capacity to make the proposed payment.

The complainant’s counsel agreed to the proposal and submitted that if Rs 2 crore was paid immediately, Yadav could be granted additional time to pay the remaining amount.

The CJI Kant-led Bench suggested that Rs 1.15 crore be deposited immediately, with the remaining Rs 85 lakh to be transferred on Monday, after which the top court would lay down a schedule for payment of the balance amount.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure over Yadav’s conduct in complying with its earlier directions and indicated that it was inclined to enhance his three-month imprisonment sentence to two years.

Justice Bagchi observed that the apex court was not satisfied with Yadav’s conduct and said the accommodation being extended to him was aimed at ensuring that the complainant recovered the money.

The top court’s latest order came after it had, on October 5, found that its September 15 direction had not been complied with. On that occasion, the CJI Kant-led Bench had observed that a photocopy of a purported Rs 50 lakh demand draft was produced with a claim that the draft would reach Delhi the following day. The Supreme Court had then granted a final opportunity to Yadav to pay a total of Rs 2 crore and posted the matter for October 7.

On September 15, the apex court had granted Yadav two weeks as a last opportunity to deposit at least Rs 2 crore, after recording that its earlier direction to deposit Rs 5 crore had not been complied with.

The Supreme Court is hearing Yadav and his wife Radha Rajpal Yadav’s petitions challenging the Delhi High Court judgment upholding their conviction in seven cheque dishonour cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Delhi High Court had on July 10 upheld Yadav’s conviction while reducing his sentence from six months to three months’ simple imprisonment in each of the seven cases. It had also reduced the fine from Rs 1.60 crore to Rs 1.05 crore in each case, with the substantive sentences directed to run concurrently.

The High Court had taken into account payments already made by Yadav to the complainant, M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd., during the pendency of the proceedings. Yadav and his wife have challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court, contending that a subsequent consent agreement between the parties was not properly considered by the courts below.

The petitioners have relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Gimpex Private Limited vs Manoj Goel, arguing that the subsequent agreement between the parties ought to have brought an end to the original complaint proceedings.

Bengaluru, Oct 7: The trial court hearing the fan murder case in Bengaluru has, for the first time, issued direct notices to social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and X, over the circulation of videos of court proceedings related to the case.

The 59th Sessions Court issued the notices on Wednesday and directed that videos of the proceedings uploaded on social media platforms be removed. Following the court’s directions, videos of the court proceedings that had been circulated online were being deleted.

The court also directed the police to initiate legal action against those who record and circulate live proceedings of the case. The police have been specifically instructed to register contempt of court proceedings against those found recording and making the proceedings viral.

The action follows the circulation of videos of proceedings involving accused-turned approver Pradosh S. Rao. Social media influencers and YouTubers had allegedly recorded and uploaded portions of the proceedings on their platforms.

The court has taken a serious view of the unauthorised recording and circulation of proceedings and issued directions to prevent further dissemination of such content.

Until now, the police had generally handled such instances by approaching social media platforms, issuing notices and registering cases against those responsible for uploading the content.

With the latest order, the trial court has directly issued notices to the social media platforms and made it clear that unauthorised recording and circulation of court proceedings could invite legal action, including contempt proceedings.

The case pertains to the murder of Renukaswamy, in which actor Darshan and several others are accused. The trial is being conducted before the 59th Sessions Court in Bengaluru.

Pradosh Rao, accused No. 14 in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case involving Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, was granted official approver status. He had been recording a massive, multi-page confidential confession statement before the magistrate.

Following the emergence of viral clips showing closed or restricted court trial interactions, the Sessions Court took serious objection to the digital circulation. It pulled up social media platforms for hosting the leaked content.