Did Delhi Police use excessive force against protesters? HC wants videos preserved

Amid allegations that excessive force was used to deter protesters marching to Parliament on July 20, the Delhi High Court has ordered the Delhi Police to preserve all video evidence from that day.

In Short

• Court says alleged police excesses not merely isolated incidents anymore
• Government claims protest turned violent, petitions filed for publicity only
• Court rejects separate PIL over Sonam Wangchuk removal from protest

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed Delhi Police to preserve CCTV footage, videography and all other relevant records relating to the alleged use of excessive force against protesters during the "Chalo Sansad" march on July 20 and 21, while issuing notice to the Centre and Delhi Police on petitions alleging police excesses.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the allegations could not be treated as a "solitary incident" and, therefore, required a formal response from the authorities instead of asking individual protesters to pursue private criminal remedies.

"Issue notice. Let a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents be filed in four weeks. Two weeks to the petitioners to file rejoinder. In the meantime, we direct that the relevant records in relation to the incident, including CCTV footage and videography, if any, shall be preserved in accordance with the standard operating procedure issued by the police," the bench ordered.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 11.

The Court was hearing two public interest litigations alleging that Delhi Police used disproportionate force against students and activists participating in the Cockroach Janata Party's (CJP) protest against repeated examination paper leaks and the proposed "Chalo Sansad" march towards Parliament.

During the hearing, the bench questioned the Centre's argument that those alleging police excess should individually approach the police or a magistrate to seek registration of an FIR.

"Had it been an isolated incident, the situation would have been different. You (police) may have been correct in asking them to go to police to lodge a private complaint. But this is not such an (isolated) incident," the court observed.

The judges further remarked that if the gathering had indeed become an unlawful assembly, the law already prescribes the procedure to deal with such situations.

Referring to the broader nature of the allegations, the bench clarified that it was not examining the veracity of the claims or the authenticity of the videos at this stage, but held that the issues raised warranted a response from the authorities.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the protesters were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly and that the police response amounted to "brutality of the highest order".

He submitted that while the state has the authority to regulate public gatherings, any use of force must satisfy constitutional standards of fairness and proportionality.

According to the petitioners, the protest at Jantar Mantar had remained peaceful until July 20, when demonstrators attempted to march towards Parliament.

They alleged that police resorted to lathi-charge, tear gas, electric batons and physical assaults without issuing the mandatory warnings ordinarily required before dispersing an assembly.

The petitioners also alleged that more than 90 protesters sustained injuries and claimed that women demonstrators were molested by police personnel.

They sought registration of FIRs against the officers involved, constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), preservation of electronic evidence, seizure of body-camera footage and protection against coercive action.

Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners further alleged that several police personnel were either in plain clothes or in uniform without name tags, making identification difficult.

They also claimed that videos showed officers using unauthorised weapons and disproportionate force against unarmed protesters, including women and students.

WHAT GOVT'S COUNSEL SAID

Opposing the petitions, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, argued that the demonstration had turned violent and that several police personnel were injured while attempting to control the crowd. He submitted that videos showed protesters engaging in stone-pelting and claimed that prohibitory orders under Section 144 were in force at the time.

Raju contended that the petitions did not disclose the commission of any cognisable offence and were filed merely to “garner publicity”.

He also argued that the petitioners had selectively relied on social media videos while ignoring material that, according to the government, demonstrated violence by sections of the crowd.

The ASG further maintained that persons alleging assault could avail remedies available under criminal law by approaching the police or the jurisdictional magistrate for registration of an FIR rather than invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

HIGH COURT DISAGREES WITH GOVT STAND

The High Court, however, declined to accept the contention that the matter should be viewed as a series of isolated incidents.

Stressing that it was not expressing any opinion on the rival claims at this stage, the bench held that the allegations raised broader questions concerning police action during a public protest and required the respondents to place their version on record.

Accordingly, the court issued notice to the Centre and Delhi Police, directing them to file their counter-affidavits within four weeks. The court also granted the petitioners two weeks thereafter to file rejoinders, and ordered preservation of CCTV footage, videography and all other relevant records pending further consideration of the matter on September 11.

HC REJECTS PLEA ON WANGCHUK'S REMOVAL

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an independent probe into the removal of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk from Delhi's Jantar Mantar during his indefinite hunger strike, holding that the issue had already been raised before it by Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali Angmo.

The bench declined to entertain the PIL filed by advocate Shakeel Abbas, observing that the grievance regarding Wangchuk's removal had already been considered in the proceedings initiated by his wife.

"This was raised by his wife. If you are still aggrieved, since it is a solitary event, approach the authorities," the bench told the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that he was seeking broader relief than registration of an FIR, including the constitution of an independent committee to investigate the incident.

"I am not seeking registration of FIR. I am seeking the constitution of a committee. Apart from Mr Wangchuk, several other protesters were also beaten up. What happened on July 18 was a public issue not a private issue," he submitted.

The Court, however, observed that an SIT could be considered only after the registration of an FIR. It noted that Wangchuk himself had not lodged any complaint and clarified that the petitioner was free to avail remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), including filing an FIR or a private complaint before the appropriate forum.

- Ends