The Delhi High Court has 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 over the alleged NEET paper leak.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia on Tuesday directed the Union government and Delhi Police to file their responses within four weeks and ordered preservation of all relevant records, including CCTV footage and videography of the incident.
The petitions were taken up after urgent mentioning. Senior Advocates N Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Vikas Singh appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General SV Raju represented the Centre and Delhi Police.
Hariharan submitted that the protest at Jantar Mantar had been peaceful and that demonstrators were exercising their rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. He argued that the police used disproportionate force, alleging that protesters were beaten with nail-fitted lathis, subjected to pellets and electric batons, and that over 90 students were injured. He further contended that no proclamation prohibiting the assembly had been issued and no warning to disperse was given before force was used.
Seeking preservation of CCTV footage, PCR logs, videography and records authorising the use of force, Hariharan also urged the Court to constitute a Special Investigation Team or appoint an independent agency, arguing that the Delhi Police could not investigate allegations against its own personnel.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that his team had verified nearly 130 videos of the incident and alleged that several persons using force were not in uniform or wearing identification badges. Referring to a video allegedly showing Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman protester, he argued that the police had failed to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Ramlila Maidan case governing dispersal of assemblies.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that the march had been publicly announced in advance, remained peaceful for nearly twenty days, and involved students, doctors, lawyers and others. Referring to Section 149 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), he submitted that officers are required to use the minimum force necessary while dispersing an assembly.
Opposing the petitions, ASG Raju argued that they were based on suppressed facts and unverified social media videos. He submitted that the protest had turned violent, police personnel were injured, police vehicles damaged, and stones were pelted by members of the crowd. He further argued that prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS were in force and that aggrieved individuals should pursue statutory remedies instead of filing PILs.
The Bench, however, observed that the allegations were not confined to isolated incidents and questioned whether every alleged victim should be required to lodge a separate FIR. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Court noted that allegations of violation of fundamental rights arising from police action could be examined in public law proceedings.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the High Court directed preservation of all relevant records relating to the incident and listed the matter for further hearing on September 11.
According to Delhi Police, at least nine FIRs have been registered in connection with the alleged violence, stone-pelting and vandalism during the march, including charges of rioting, assault on public servants, damage to property and attempt to murder a Rapid Action Force personnel.
The post Delhi High Court issues notice to Centre, police on PILs alleging excessive force during Sansad Chalo protest appeared first on India Legal.