Delhi High Court Seeks Police Response On PILs Alleging Excessive Force On Student Protesters, Directs Preservation Of Videos

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice on a batch of public interest litigations alleging excessive use of force by the Delhi Police against students participating in the Cockroach Janta Party's “Sansad Chalo” march on July 20, against the alleged NEET paper leak.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the Delhi Police and the Union of India to file their counter affidavits within four weeks. In the meantime, the Court ordered preservation of all relevant records, including CCTV footage and videography, relating to the incident.

The pleas were heard after the Court allowed urgent mentioning of one of the petitions, in which it was submitted that the incident had “shocked the conscience of the entire nation”.

Senior Advocates N. Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Vikas Singh appeared for the petitioners. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju represented the Delhi Police and the Union Government.

Hariharan submitted that the protest at Jantar Mantar had begun peacefully and that the demonstrators were exercising their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21. He contended that though the authorities are empowered to regulate assemblies, the force allegedly used by the police was disproportionate and “unimaginable”.

Referring to video evidence placed before the Court, Hariharan alleged that students had been beaten with lathis fitted with nails and subjected to pellets and electric batons, resulting in injuries to more than 90 protesters.

He further argued that no proclamation prohibiting the assembly had been issued and that the police had not warned the protesters to disperse before resorting to force. He submitted that any force used against protesters must be proportionate and not punitive.

He thus sought preservation of all material connected with the incident, including CCTV footage, PCR logs, videography and orders authorising the use of tear gas and batons.

He also urged the Court to constitute a Special Investigation Team or appoint an independent agency to probe the allegations, arguing that the Delhi Police could not investigate accusations against its own personnel.

“There are policemen who were molesting women, beating them on private parts. It is so ghastly... At least identifiable policemen, against them FIRs should be there. It is all in videos. An enquiry be made into the entire incident,” he submitted.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing in another PIL, submitted that his team had verified nearly 130 videos relating to the incident. He alleged that several persons seen using force were neither in police uniform nor wearing identification badges.

Referring to one of the videos, Sankaranarayanan alleged that it showed Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman protester. “Videos show Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman who was doing nothing. Let's not be scared to name our thugs in uniform. He slaps her across the face. They were in charge to protect us,” he argued.

He cited Supreme Court's 2012 judgment in Ram Lila Maidan case, Sankaranarayanan contended that the authorities had failed to follow the prescribed protocol for dispersing crowds, which requires prior announcements and treats tear gas as a measure of last resort.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that the march to Parliament had been publicly announced in advance and that the authorities were aware that the gathering would swell on July 20. He argued that the protest had remained peaceful for nearly twenty days and involved students, doctors, lawyers and persons from different walks of life.

Singh maintained that there was nothing on record to suggest that the gathering constituted an unlawful assembly. Referring to Section 149 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, he argued that officers dispersing assemblies are required to use “as little force, and do as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly”.

Opposing the petitions, ASG Raju argued that they were based on “suppression of facts” and social media videos whose authenticity could not readily be accepted.

Raju submitted that the demonstrations had turned violent and that there were videos showing police personnel sustaining injuries and police vehicles being damaged.

“There are videos showing that the crowd became violent and threw stones. They are saying themselves that there was a truck with bricks. To say that the police got it cannot be said. Not all must be involved but someone from the mob must have,” he submitted.

The ASG further argued that the petitioners had failed to avail alternative remedies, including approaching a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. He also submitted that prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNS had been promulgated.

“The petition, though it looks very attractive at first blush, is not so. It is based on suppression of facts and social media recordings. Social media is known to be tampered with. These are all publicity petitions, with ulterior motives,” Raju argued, adding that the pleas had been filed merely to “hog the limelight”.

Questioning the maintainability of the PILs, Raju contended that individuals claiming to have been assaulted should pursue appropriate legal remedies instead of invoking the Court's public interest jurisdiction.

The bench, however, observed that the allegations did not concern isolated incidents involving individual victims.

“Is it a case of some isolated incidents? Perhaps not. If it was an unlawful assembly, as you say, there is law on how to deal with it. If these issues are raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should lodge an FIR?” the Court asked.

The bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the veracity of the allegations or the authenticity of the videos relied upon by the petitioners. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Court observed that remedies for alleged violations of fundamental rights arising from police action could also be pursued under public law.

Without making any observations on the merits of the matter, the Court directed preservation of “the relevant record in relation to the incident as mentioned in the writ petitions, including CCTV footage and videography, if any”, in accordance with the standard operating procedures issued by the Delhi Police and the Union Government.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 11.

Significantly, the Court had on Monday declined urgent listing of a similar petition, orally observing, “Don't drag Court into all this. It will come up tomorrow.”

The Supreme Court, too, refused urgent listing of a similar plea earlier in the day, remarking, “Don't waste our time, and don't waste your time.”

According to the Delhi Police, at least nine FIRs have been registered in connection with the alleged “violence, stone-pelting and vandalism” during the march. The FIRs have been lodged at police stations including Parliament Street, Barakhamba Road and Connaught Place.

The charges include rioting, assaulting public servants on duty, damaging government and private property, and attempting to murder a Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel.

The “Cockroach Janta Party” emerged as a satirical social media movement following an oral remark made by the Chief Justice of India during an earlier hearing, in which he referred to unemployed youth attacking institutions under the guise of online activism as “cockroaches”. The Chief Justice later clarified that the remark was directed at persons holding fake degrees. Social media accounts associated with the movement, which had amassed millions of followers within days, were subsequently suspended.