DELHI HIGH COURT SEEKS POLICE RESPONSE ON ACTION AGAINST JANTAR MANTAR PROTESTORS, DIRECTS PRESERVATION OF CCTV FOOTAGE:

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Delhi Police and the Union of India in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging excessive use of force by police personnel during the Cockroach Janta Party’s protest march at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rejected the preliminary objection raised by the authorities that individuals affected by the alleged action should separately approach a Magistrate or police authorities. The Court observed that the allegations raised in the petition related to a broader issue concerning alleged systemic police excesses during a public demonstration and could not be viewed merely as isolated individual grievances. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 11, with the Court directing the authorities to file their responses within four weeks and preserve all relevant records, including CCTV footage and video recordings of the incident, in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Union Government.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan submitted that the protesters were exercising their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, relating to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully without arms. He argued that the demonstrators were also protected under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and that any State action affecting such rights must satisfy the requirements of fairness and reasonableness under Article 14. According to him, while the State has the authority to regulate public gatherings, the police response in the present case amounted to excessive and arbitrary use of force against individuals who had gathered peacefully to raise concerns regarding irregularities in the NEET examination process.

Hariharan contended that several video recordings of the incident revealed the disproportionate nature of the police action. He alleged that police personnel used force through lathis fitted with nails, electric batons, and other prohibited methods against young protesters. He further argued that no prohibitory order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been issued or publicly communicated to prevent the assembly. Even assuming that the gathering had become difficult to control, he submitted that standard crowd-control procedures required prior warnings before any use of force. He alleged that female protesters were subjected to physical abuse and harassment and stated that more than 90 students suffered injuries during the incident. He urged the Court to direct an independent investigation or constitute a Special Investigation Team to examine the conduct of police personnel involved.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan informed the Court that he had reviewed more than 130 videos relating to the incident and claimed that they indicated a coordinated and unlawful use of force. He submitted that several police personnel were either in plain clothes or lacked visible name badges, making identification difficult. Referring to specific video footage, he alleged instances of officers assaulting protesters without provocation and using unauthorized weapons. He relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Ramlila Maidan incident case to emphasize that the right to peaceful protest cannot be curtailed through arbitrary State action.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh also submitted that the protest march had been publicly announced and that no violence had occurred before the police intervention. He alleged that the crowd consisted largely of students and young demonstrators and that police personnel, along with unidentified persons in civilian clothes, attacked the protesters despite the absence of any evidence of widespread violence.

Representing the authorities, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the petitions, arguing that the demonstrations had ceased to remain peaceful and that incidents of stone pelting, damage to public property, and injuries to police personnel had been reported. He submitted that certain elements within the gathering had created disorder and that criminal proceedings had already been initiated through registration of FIRs. He contended that individual grievances should ordinarily be pursued before the Magistrate rather than through a PIL.

The Bench, however, observed that the allegations raised were not limited to isolated incidents and that constitutional courts could examine claims of public wrongs and alleged State excesses through public law remedies. The Court referred to previous Supreme Court judgments, including the Ramlila Maidan and Anita Thakur cases, which recognize judicial intervention in matters involving infringement of fundamental rights by State authorities. Without making any final observations on the merits of the allegations, the Court directed preservation of all relevant evidence and sought responses from the authorities.

In a separate plea concerning the alleged forceful removal of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar, the Court declined to entertain the petition, noting that his wife had already initiated proceedings regarding the same incident. The Bench observed that the dispute had already been addressed through existing legal proceedings and that any further grievance could be pursued through appropriate remedies. It also declined a request for constitution of an SIT, observing that such a direction would ordinarily require registration of an FIR and compliance with the statutory procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.