Delhi HC Seeks Police Reply On PILs Alleging Excessive Force During 'Sansad Chalo' Protest, Orders CCTV Preservation

New Delhi, July 22: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Delhi Police and the Union Government on a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) alleging excessive use of force against students during the "Sansad Chalo" march organised by the Cockroach Janta Party on July 20 over the alleged NEET paper leak.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notices to the respondents and granted them four weeks to file their counter affidavits.

Pending further proceedings, the Court directed the authorities to preserve all records related to the incident, including CCTV footage and videography. The petitions were taken up after urgent mentioning, with one petitioner submitting that the incident had "shocked the conscience of the entire nation", Live Law reported.

Court Focuses On Evidence

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

Hariharan argued that the protest at Jantar Mantar had started peacefully, with students exercising their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21. While acknowledging that authorities have the power to regulate public assemblies, he contended that the force allegedly used by the police was disproportionate and "unimaginable".

Pointing to videos placed before the Court, Hariharan alleged that students were beaten with lathis fitted with nails and were subjected to pellets and electric batons, leaving more than 90 protesters injured. He further claimed that no proclamation prohibiting the assembly had been issued and that the police failed to warn protesters to disperse before using force. According to him, any force used against demonstrators must be proportionate and cannot be punitive.

Seeking to safeguard evidence, Hariharan urged the Court to preserve CCTV footage, Police Control Room (PCR) logs, videography and orders authorising the use of tear gas and batons. He also requested the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or an independent probe, arguing that the Delhi Police could not fairly investigate allegations 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," Hariharan submitted before the Court.

Arguments From Both Sides

Appearing in another PIL, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that his legal team had verified nearly 130 videos related to the incident. He alleged that several people 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.

Relying on the Supreme Court's 2012 judgment in the Ram Lila Maidan case, Sankaranarayanan argued that authorities had failed to follow the prescribed procedure for dispersing crowds, including prior announcements and treating tear gas only as a last resort.

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

Singh further argued that nothing on record suggested that the gathering was an unlawful assembly. Referring to Section 149 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), he said officers dispersing assemblies are required to use as little force and cause as little injury as possible.

Opposing the petitions, ASG Raju argued that the PILs were based on suppression of facts and social media videos whose authenticity could not be readily accepted. He submitted that the protest had turned violent and that there were videos showing police personnel being injured 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," Raju argued.

The ASG also contended that the petitioners had alternative legal remedies, including approaching a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submitted that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita had already been promulgated.

Describing the PILs as "publicity petitions", Raju argued that they were filed merely to "hog the limelight". He questioned their maintainability, saying individuals claiming assault should pursue their own legal remedies rather than invoke the Court's PIL jurisdiction.

Bench Directs Records Preserved

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

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the bench directed that all relevant records mentioned in the writ petitions, including CCTV footage and videography, if available, be preserved in accordance with the standard operating procedures of the Delhi Police and the Union Government.

The matter has been listed for hearing on September 11.

The development comes a day after the Delhi High Court declined urgent listing of a similar petition, orally remarking, "Don't drag Court into all this. It will come up tomorrow." Earlier the same day, the Supreme Court also refused urgent listing of a similar plea, observing, "Don't waste our time, and don't waste your time."

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

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

Also Watch:

The Cockroach Janta Party emerged as a satirical social media movement after an oral remark 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 aimed at people holding fake degrees. Social media accounts linked to the movement, which had attracted millions of followers within days, were later suspended.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/