The Delhi High Court has sought responses from the Centre, the Delhi government and Delhi Police over petitions alleging excessive use of force by police personnel during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) “Sansad Chalo” protest at Jantar Mantar on July 20.
Hearing a batch of public interest litigations on July 23, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia questioned whether the alleged police action could simply be treated as “some isolated individual incident” and directed authorities to preserve all CCTV footage, videography and other digital records related to the clashes until further orders.
The court also observed that even if an assembly was ultimately found to be unlawful, there is a legal procedure governing how police should deal with protesters, indicating that allegations of excessive force warranted judicial scrutiny.
The petitions seek a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe, identification of officers responsible for authorising force and registration of FIRs against erring personnel. Representing the authorities, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the pleas, calling them “publicity seeking petitions” filed to “hog limelight”.
They argued that the protest had turned violent, police personnel were injured, vehicles were damaged and any individual grievances should be pursued through ordinary criminal remedies rather than PILs.
The High Court has issued notices to the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing on September 11, making this the first substantive judicial examination of the allegations after the Supreme Court declined urgent intervention a day earlier.
Court Examines Competing Claims
The hearing focused on sharply contrasting versions of what unfolded during the July 20 protest. Petitioners, represented by senior advocates N. Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Vikas Singh, argued that the demonstration was peaceful before police intervened and alleged that protesters were subjected to disproportionate force in violation of their constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
They urged the court to direct disclosure of records authorising the use of force, identify officers responsible for ordering police action, preserve all digital evidence and order criminal proceedings against those found culpable.
During the hearing, the Bench questioned the government’s submission that affected individuals should simply file separate FIRs, observing that if broader issues regarding the manner in which police dispersed demonstrators had been raised in a PIL, courts could not dismiss them by asking every alleged victim to pursue separate criminal complaints.
“Is it a case of some isolated individual incident? Perhaps no… There is a law how to deal with it,” the Bench observed while issuing notice. On behalf of Delhi Police, ASG S.V. Raju maintained that the agitation had ceased to be peaceful and that videos showed protesters attacking police personnel, damaging official vehicles and causing injuries to law enforcement officers.
The government’s legal team contended that existing legal remedies were sufficient and that PIL jurisdiction should not be invoked for individual allegations. Without expressing any view on the merits of either version, the High Court directed preservation of CCTV footage, police videography and all other relevant electronic records, ensuring that crucial evidence remains available while the competing claims are examined.
Legal Battle Across Courts
The High Court proceedings come against the backdrop of differing judicial responses to the controversy. Just a day earlier, the Supreme Court declined to entertain an urgent plea seeking suo motu intervention into the alleged police brutality, with Chief Justice Surya Kant reportedly telling the petitioner not to “waste our time and yours” and refusing to examine videos related to the incident.
The plea before the apex court had sought an independent judicial inquiry, registration of FIRs against Delhi Police officials and protection of protesters’ fundamental rights. Earlier this week, the Delhi High Court had also declined urgent listing of another petition concerning alleged police excesses, remarking that the court should not be dragged into the issue.
However, after fresh PILs were filed, the Bench agreed to hear the matter and formally sought responses from the authorities, marking a significant shift in judicial engagement with the allegations. Meanwhile, the Uttarakhand High Court adopted a notably different approach while hearing a petition concerning the detention of Uttarakhand Parivartan Party chief Prabhat Dhyani, who was travelling to Delhi to participate in the protest.
During that hearing, the court reportedly described the government’s action as “gundagardi” (hooliganism) and questioned the legality of preventing a political leader from joining a demonstration. The underlying dispute stems from clashes during the CJP’s “Sansad Chalo” march, organised over demands linked to alleged examination paper leaks and broader accountability concerns.
Authorities maintain that protesters turned violent and damaged public property, making police intervention necessary, while organisers insist the gathering was peaceful before force was used. Videos and eyewitness accounts supporting both narratives continue to circulate online, but their authenticity and legal implications remain matters for judicial examination.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Public protest and public order are both protected within a constitutional democracy, and neither should come at the cost of the other. Peaceful assemblies enable citizens to express dissent, while law enforcement agencies carry the responsibility of maintaining safety within the framework of the law. Allegations of excessive force against protesters, just like allegations of violence against police personnel, deserve an impartial, transparent and evidence-based examination rather than conclusions driven by political narratives or viral videos.
The Delhi High Court’s direction to preserve CCTV footage and other digital records underscores the importance of safeguarding evidence before competing claims are tested in court. Ultimately, accountability strengthens democratic institutions not weakens them and public confidence grows when investigations are fair, transparent and rooted in due process.
Also read: How Relentless Monsoon Rains Left 41 Dead and Triggered Assam’s Biggest Flood Crisis
