Short explainers.Sourced claims.

NATGRID (National Intelligence Grid) is a central query layer that lets designated Indian agencies pull information across many government databases — travel, financial, telecom, identity documents, and more — instead of asking each department separately.

Reporting has put usage on the order of tens of thousands of queries a month, and has linked its reach to population-scale registers such as the NPR. Exact current volumes change; treat any number as a snapshot.

Why it matters: there is no dedicated statute creating independent oversight. It runs on Home Ministry executive authority. Comparable systems elsewhere usually have an oversight body. NATGRID does not.

A normal CCTV camera records video. Someone may watch it later. Live facial recognition does something else: it tries to match every face in a crowd against a database in real time — while people are still standing there.

That gap — recording versus matching against a watchlist at a protest — is the point. One is footage. The other is identity sorting at speed.

Delhi Police have been reported to deploy FRT-equipped vans (described in reporting as “Ikshana”) at protests, including July 2026 gatherings at Jantar Mantar. A petition challenging live FRT use is pending before the Delhi High Court.

Aadhaar is India’s biometric ID system. By design it is an identity-verification layer, not a single central “surveillance camera database.” Claiming that every FRT scan hits Aadhaar as fact is not supported by confirmed public evidence as of this page’s publish date.

Why people suspect a link anyway: other state systems increasingly sit next to Aadhaar-adjacent population data (NPR and related registers). Suspicion is not the same as confirmation.

Garudex does not state an Aadhaar–live-FRT link as fact. If that changes, this card updates.

This card is a draft of practical points under current law — not aspirational slogans. Wrong advice at a protest is worse than no card. Treat it as orientation until a lawyer or group such as the Internet Freedom Foundation has reviewed it.

1. You are not required to unlock your phone or hand over passwords solely because an officer asks — force and coercion rules are fact-specific; do not escalate alone.

2. Photography and filming in public spaces is generally lawful; police may still attempt to stop recording. Know your local ground reality.

3. You can ask under what provision you are being stopped or searched. Write down badge numbers and location when safe.

4. You are not required to delete photos or videos of police action because an officer demands it — again, safety first.

5. If detained, ask whether you are under arrest and on what charge; seek legal aid early.

In 2017 India’s Supreme Court ruled that privacy is a fundamental right. The case is often called “Puttaswamy” after the retired judge who filed it — you do not need the name to use the rule.

Any state intrusion into privacy has to clear three checks: is there a clear law allowing it? Is the aim legitimate? Is the intrusion necessary and not excessive? That last one is proportionality.

You can apply the test yourself. Ask: is there a law for this exact use? What aim is claimed? Is scanning every face at a protest a proportionate means?

Live FRT at protests without a clear law, and NATGRID running with no independent oversight, both sit awkwardly against that test. That is the legal hook for the three asks — not vague outrage.

Police “habitual offender” and “bad character” lists used for matching have a documented history of overrepresenting Dalit, Bahujan, Adivasi, Vimukta, and Muslim communities.

If FRT matches against skewed lists, errors and harassment do not fall evenly. That is a documented pattern in reporting and research — cite the pattern, do not invent individual accusations.