BREAKING| No Excessive Force Used Against Student Protesters, Parliament March Was Illegal : Delhi Police To Supreme Court
The Police stated that more than 30,000 protesters were present around Jantar Mantar on July 20, when a proposed march towards Parliament triggered a major law-and-order operatio.
After Bihar, the Delhi Police has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court denying the use of excessive force against student protestors.
In a counter-affidavit filed by Dy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma, the police defended its use of force, saying the protests had ceased to be peaceful after sections of the crowd allegedly breached multiple layers of barricades and attempted to move towards Parliament. The affidavit was filed in response to the petitions seeking Court-monitored investigation into alleged police excesses and is also intended as a common reply in four connected petitions.
It states that the police used a graded force. About 5000 police officers were trying to manage a crowd of over 30,000 people, spread across 3 kms. As the crowd went completely out of control, struggle ensued and both protestors as well as police personnel were injured. More than 240 personnel/uniformed officers and around 200 public persons/protestors received injuries.
The affidavit avers that the allegation of excessive force cannot be sustained in view of the sheer number of protestors present at different spots, which included anti-social elements and history sheeters who had infiltrated the protest.
It is further highlighted that since there was no permission granted for the Parliament march, the gathering was an illegal gathering and attempt to move towards the Parliament an illegal act by an unlawful assembly.
The police also claims that the petitions filed before the court rely on selective photographs, incomplete video clips, unverified media and social media reports, which have not been independently verified. These paint a one-sided picture, without reflecting lawful actions of the police officials.
On the allegation of use of lathis with nails, the police says that as per videos, there was a solitary incident involving a lathi with nails, but that too, was in the hands of a protestor, not the police. It is states that it was not a lathi, but a stick which had the National Flag attached to it.
The affidavits states that lathis are an acceptable permissible gear and the officials were only attempting to contain the crowds as groups of protestors started attacking them unprovoked.
All measures were taken strictly in accordance with permissible modes of controlling violence, the affidavit states.
On use of officials in plain clothes
It is further claimed that the videos of police officials with lathis in plain clothes (Spotters) show a crowd control measure out of context. The affidavit mentions that due to urgency of the situation, spotters from Special Branch, Special Cell, Crime Branch and Local Police strategically merged inside the crowd, which is neither illegal nor unusual. This tactic is infact adopted in public gatherings on Independence Day, Republic Day, etc. as well.
The police claims that it was constrained to use force only after the protestors breached the multiple layers of the barricade and started violence. It alleges that there are videos of large groups of protestors targeting lone police officials in a mob lynching fashion and pulling off protective gear of officers, dragging them, and pushing them on stone pavements.
It is also informed that about 2873 persons had criminal charges against them, including murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rape, POCSO etc. They will be investigated by the SIT constituted by Delhi Commissioner. The affidavit states that the use of force by the police can be gone into by the Committee proposed to be setup by the court and the Delhi police will cooperate with it.
On use of facial recognition software
Notably, on deployment of facial recognition software at protest site, the police says that the same was a proportionate policing measure. The software, according to the affidavit, does not automatically capture profile of every individual present at the protest site, nor is it deployed for indiscriminate surveillance or collection of personal information of peaceful protestors unless he has a previous criminal record.
The police states that no action is taken solely on basis of facial recognition. A field verification is also carried out to be sure that the person in question was present at site or not. Further, the software only captures persons who have a past criminal record for serious offenses, not petty offenses like traffic challans.
Case :Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 280/2026