The Delhi High Court on Tuesday orally advised the petitioner challenging the alleged surveillance of students protesting over the NEET paper leak at Jantar Mantar to first examine the existing legal framework, including statutory provisions and the Delhi Police’s standard operating procedures (SOPs), before deciding whether a fresh petition should be filed.A Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia made the observation while hearing a public interest litigation filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union president Aishe Ghosh, who alleged that peaceful protesters were subjected to continuous photography, videography and police monitoring during the agitation.The matter was taken up after counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment, stating that the senior counsel was engaged in another court. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, informed the Bench that connected matters were already listed for hearing on September 11.The Bench then observed that the petitioner should examine the legal regime governing such issues before pursuing the challenge.The court noted that statutory provisions, including the Delhi Police SOPs, the Data Protection Act and the Public Records Act, were already in place and required consideration. Sharma supported the court’s view, submitting that the issue was also covered by four judicial precedents.Clarifying that it was not expressing any opinion on the legality of the alleged surveillance in the present proceedings, the Bench said the petitioner should study the statutory framework and then decide whether a fresh petition was warranted. It added that the legal provisions and SOPs could be examined in an appropriate case, independent of the present incident.The court thereafter posted the matter for further hearing on August 25.The observations came a day after the Bench had suggested that the petitioner could file a better-framed petition seeking guidelines governing police surveillance during protests.On Monday, the Centre had argued that since the protest had ended, the relief sought in the PIL had become infructuous. The petitioner, however, maintained that the issue was still relevant because the plea sought a declaration that the alleged surveillance was illegal.The Bench had then indicated that a fresh petition seeking comprehensive guidelines could be considered, where the existing legal mechanism could be placed on record and examined.When the Centre argued that there could not be a “publicity interest litigation”, the Bench remarked that a separate petition would enable the court to assess whether the existing safeguards and legal provisions were adequate.According to the plea, since the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) launched its sit-in and hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on June 20, demonstrators had been kept under continuous watch through a permanent surveillance tower installed at the protest site.The petition alleged that the monitoring extended beyond protest activities to routine acts such as eating, resting and seeking medical assistance, and was used to intimidate student protesters. It claimed that the threatened use of surveillance material to identify participants had a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.It also raised concerns over the privacy of women protesters, alleging that during heavy rainfall, women who remained at the site in drenched clothes due to inadequate shelter continued to be photographed and videographed by police personnel, amounting to an invasion of bodily privacy and dignity.Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had submitted that videography of protests was a routine law-and-order measure and argued that claiming privacy in a public place was untenable.