Why are police in plainclothes deployed for crowd control? Is it legal?

Delhi Police personnel not in uniform and RAF personnel without name badges drew scrutiny during the crackdown during the march to Parliament on Monday. Is the presence of cops in plainclothes a new phenomenon, and is it legal? Here's an explainer.

When Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF) moved to disperse protesters marching from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament on July 20, one question emerged amid allegations of excessive force — who were the "personnel" in plainclothes, and why were several uniformed personnel not wearing name badges?

The issue was highlighted by journalists at the protest site repeatedly asking personnel of the Delhi Police and the RAF why they were either out of uniform or without nameplates, but received no clear answer. An RAF personnel told India Today Digital's sister publication, The Lallantop, that they weren't wearing badges with names as "the badges could fall off during action".

However, modern combat uniforms typically have embroidered name tapes or Velcro-backed badges designed to stay attached even during intense operations.

The matter also came into focus after a reporter from The Lallantop was assaulted on camera by a man in plainclothes who was accompanied by a Delhi Police havildar. The individual was in civilian clothes and refused to identify himself or explain under what authority he was acting.

Thousands of protesters tried to march to Parliament on July 20 on a call given by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and activist Sonam Wangchuk. During a confrontation with the protesters, the police resorted to lathicharge and lobbed tear gas shells. Some people in plainclothes but with polycarbonate lathis used by police were seen attacking the protesters.

There are allegations of use of disproportionate force by the police. The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to Delhi Police to preserve the video evidence of the action by its personnel on July 20.

Who were those people in plainclothes? Were they police personnel? What does the law say about police personnel on duty and uniform?

PLAINCLOTHES POLICEMEN ARE NOT UNUSUAL: FORMER TOP COPS

Retired senior police officers from the Delhi Police and Mumbai Police told India Today Digital that deploying personnel in civilian clothes during protests is neither new nor exceptional.

"Police personnel in plainclothes are deployed to gauge the mood of the crowd, get a sense of the de facto leadership and act, if needed be," a retired officer who served with Delhi Police said.

He described it as a "long-standing practice", adding that such personnel are primarily used for intelligence gathering and identifying potential troublemakers before situations escalate.

A former Maharashtra Director General of Police echoed that assessment.

"During such unruly crowding, miscreants invariably take advantage and become part of the crowd. As noticed, there is a tendency to attack or even lynch policemen," the retired IPS officer said.

"Policemen in civil clothes are part of deployment at such places. Their role is however limited," he added.

The explanation, however, only partly answers the questions raised after Sunday's crackdown. Plainclothes deployment, according to the retired police officers, has operational justification. But is that legal?

WHAT DO THE RULES SAY ABOUT COPS AND UNIFORM?

There is no publicly available provision in the Delhi Police Act that explicitly permits police personnel engaged in crowd control to not don their uniform or remove their name badges. The Act primarily empowers the force to regulate uniforms and prohibits unauthorised persons from wearing police uniforms.

Delhi Police's own standing orders governing uniforms prescribe nameplates as part of the official dress for several categories of personnel, indicating that nameplates are considered a standard component of the uniform rather than an optional accessory.

The strongest legal principle on identification, however, comes from the Supreme Court.

In the landmark DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) judgment, the Supreme Court directed that police personnel carrying out arrests or handling interrogation "should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations", and that the particulars of all officers involved in interrogation be recorded in a register.

However, the judgment does not expressly refer to general crowd-control or law-and-order duties. That seemingly leaves a legal grey area.

POLICE NOT IN UNIFORM: SECURITY VERSUS ACCOUNTABILITY

Former police officers argue that concealing identities might sometimes be necessary to protect personnel from retaliation, or targeted attacks, particularly when dealing with violent crowds.

Civil liberties advocates, on the other hand, argue that visible identification is essential for accountability whenever force is used by the state.

Independent journalist Abhishek Kothari, said in a post on X, "Didn’t the police & RAF personnel (against kids) have their name plates not worn during attacks in Delhi? This is shocking. In India, on-duty police officers are strictly required to wear their official nameplates and badges. Concealing or removing identification violates departmental discipline and Supreme Court guidelines, which mandate clear and visible identification to maintain transparency and accountability."

This debate, however, is hardly unique to India. Videos from protests in several countries, especially the United States, have sparked similar controversies whenever officers were accused of obscuring or removing identification during operations.

The events at the CJP protest have once again brought that tension into focus.

If plainclothes deployment is an accepted policing tactic, questions remain over whether personnel exercising coercive powers should always be identifiable, especially when allegations of assault, excessive force or unlawful detention arise. Is the police policing itself at all?

- Ends