During the October 10 march at Jantar Mantar, a Delhi Police official on duty was seen wearing Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses, Indian Express Hindi reported, raising questions about police surveillance and civilian privacy rights.
A MediaNama journalist, who was in the vicinity of the protest site that evening, partially corroborated this.
“I took an autorickshaw to Rajiv Chowk around 5 pm on Saturday, October 10. I noticed two police officials at two separate checkpoints, both within a 10-minute radius of Connaught Place, wearing what appeared to be smart glasses while they were stopping and searching vehicles,” he said, asking not to be named for fear of retribution.
To be sure, Delhi Police also uses smart glasses developed by Maharashtra-based Ajna Tech for surveillance purposes.
Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has noted in a statement that such commercially developed wearable technologies that can capture audio, video, or other data threaten the privacy of civilians protesting and exercising their rights.
“The use of Meta smart glasses also indicates the possibility of private companies engaging with law enforcement agencies to enable mass surveillance programs in the absence of public disclosures that provide information on the purpose of deploying them and the safeguards applicable to their deployment,” SFLC said.
In an X post, Indian Express Hindi asked two specific questions:
- Are police personnel given these smart glasses for surveillance or any other purpose? If yes, then why?
- If not, can any police personnel wear such smart glasses while on duty? And record people without authorization?
The core privacy issue: Smart glasses are designed to look like ordinary glasses, but they are capable of taking pictures and recording videos. They do not look like cameras, so passers-by would hardly notice if someone is filming them. The wearer can interact with AI hands-free and take photos and videos simply by touching the frames, without the subject knowing about it.
The onus falls entirely on bystanders then to notice the small capture LED in the glass frames that blinks when recording is in progress.
Creators have already documented how the recording light on Meta glasses can be circumvented. Online tutorials and a Wired investigation showed how wearers can obscure or physically remove the LED light altogether, with recording still possible.
However, Meta claims it has since updated the AI glasses to turn off the camera when the recording LED is tampered with.
The bigger problem is that in India, smart glasses are increasingly being used as a tool of mass surveillance.
During the Cockroach Janta Party protests in July, people alleged that Delhi Police used Meta AI glasses to record them without their consent. In fact, former JNU Students’ Union president and CPI(M) leader Aishe Ghosh filed a petition before the Delhi High Court, alleging the police monitored protestors not only during demonstrations, but also while they were eating and resting. It also alleged that the police had threatened to send footage of student demonstrators to their parents and colleges.
In April, students of Lady Shri Ram College alleged that members of the administration used Meta AI glasses to record and intimidate them after they staged a protest over Principal Kanika Ahuja’s appearance in a BJP social media video.
The AI glasses surveillance issue may become more acute, with Reliance Jio planning to introduce JioFrames, a sub-$105 rival to Meta’s smart glasses which are priced at around $42o in India. Lenskart’s smart glasses also have camera and audio recording features.
What does Indian law say about filming without consent? Filming someone without their consent in India is generally legal in public spaces under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech and expression), but becomes illegal if it violates a person’s Right to Privacy under Article 21 which involves private areas, or is used for harassment, stalking, or voyeurism.
Existing laws offer limited protection when someone is secretly filmed and the footage is then used to harass them.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 do provide a mechanism for removal of harmful content filmed with smart glasses. However, the process can take up to 36 hours and platforms may or may not act on the complaint.
Earlier this year, a Delhi man sued Meta after an Instagram creator secretly filmed him using its smart glasses and then uploaded the footage without his consent. The legal notice implicates Meta at two fronts:
- First, as the owner of Instagram, which did not take down the Reel despite a complaint
- Second, as the developer of the camera-equipped glasses used to record him.
This is one the first legal cases in India testing whether a smart glass manufacturer can be held liable for the harm stemming from their product.
The broader pattern: The discontent with Meta AI smart glasses has been brewing throughout this year.
- A US lawsuit in March 2026 named Meta and Luxottica. The suit alleges Meta marketed the glasses as privacy-focused, but did not disclose that contractors would review captured footage, including intimate recordings.
- That lawsuit followed a Swedish investigation. It found Meta sent footage from the glasses, some recorded inside users’ homes, to data annotators in Kenya. Kenya’s data regulator opened an investigation after a digital-rights group complained.
- Courtrooms have started barring the Meta AI glasses over covert-recording concerns, including in New York and across England and Wales.
Also read:
- What remains unanswered from Delhi Police’s RTI reply on live CCTV surveillance & facial recognition
- IFF backs challenge to Meta over Ray-Ban glasses: Who is liable when bystanders are recorded?
The post Delhi Police spotted with Meta AI glasses during Oct 10 protest, compounding privacy concerns appeared first on MEDIANAMA.