Swatantra Bhardwaj's Admissions Show Police Allowed Violent Persons To Infiltrate Student Protests : Petitioner To Supreme Court
The petitioner further asserts that there was no statutory backing for deployment of police personnel in plain clothes during the protests.
In the student protests matter, the petitioner side has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that in view of Swatantra Bhardwaj's public admissions of assault on a Cockroach Janta Party protestor's father, it is clear that persons with violent tendencies were allowed to infiltrate the Jantar Mantar protests.
The affidavit says that the July 20 protest march to Parliament was intended at peacefully protesting against government policies, but the Delhi police forcibly halted it by "engineering" a law and order situation through introduction of "chaotic" elements and using disproportionate force.
"...the police deliberately infiltrated chaotic elements into the peaceful procession - individuals such as Swatantra Bhardwaj and others, armed with sticks and clubs with the intent to incite violence- to engineer unrest. This was done to fabricate a pretext for deploying forcible measures such as lathi charges, pellet guns, tear gas, and water cannons, with the sole objective of crushing the peaceful demonstration against the government's flawed education policies", the affidavit states.
On Swatantra Bhardwaj's public admissions about his assaulting of a CJP protestor's father, the petitioner says,
"...the mala fide character of the said infiltration is further underscored by the subsequent admission made by Swatantra Bhardwaj himself in a publicly available podcast conducted by journalist Neha Singh Rathore, wherein he admitted to having broken the skull of the protestor, father of Nishu Azad. This admission, made in his own voice and in the public domain, demonstrates that the individuals introduced into the procession were not peaceful participants but persons with a propensity for violence, whose presence was utilised to create the very conditions that the police thereafter invoked as justification for the use of disproportionate force."
The rejoinder-affidavit, filed by petitioner-Shailendra Mani Tripathi, further opposes the Delhi police's justification regarding deployment of police personnel in plain clothes (described as "Spotters"). It is claimed that there was no statutory backing under the Delhi Police Act, 1978, the BNSS or any other law governing powers of the police.
"The deployment of uniformed force in civilian attire, particularly when such personnel are armed with lathis and participate in crowd-control operations, is wholly unauthorized, opaque, and contrary to the principle of identifiable and accountable policing. An administrative practice, however widespread, cannot create a power that the statute does not confer."
Recently, a Delhi Court remanded Swatantra Bhardwaj to 14 days judicial custody in the assault case of the CJP protestor's father. The Delhi High Court also rejected his habeas corpus plea against arrest in the case.
The rejoinder affidavit has been filed through Advocate Chand Qureshi.
Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., Diary No. 44078/2026 (and connected cases)