The Delhi Police has denied using excessive force during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led “Sansad Chalo” march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament on July 20, saying a crowd of more than 30,000 people breached multiple barricades and the situation became “completely out of control”.
In a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma said around 5,000 personnel were deployed across a three-kilometre stretch and that police used only “graded force” to contain the crowd.
The police claimed more than 240 personnel and uniformed officers, besides around 200 protesters and members of the public, were injured. It also alleged that “anti-social elements” and history-sheeters had infiltrated the gathering and said no permission had been granted for the Parliament march, making the attempt to proceed towards Parliament unlawful.
Protesters and petitioners, however, have alleged disproportionate force, including baton charges and the use of pellet guns and other weapons. The Supreme Court has said the allegations warrant an independent and impartial probe and ordered preservation of CCTV, drone, body-camera and other evidence.
Police Defend Graded Force
The police’s latest affidavit puts forward a detailed defence of its conduct during the July 20 confrontation. According to DCP Sachin Sharma, the protest began peacefully but changed after sections of the crowd allegedly breached several layers of barricading and attempted to move towards Parliament.
The police maintain that officers were responding to an escalating law-and-order situation rather than targeting peaceful demonstrators. It has also disputed allegations that officers used a “nail-studded lathi”, saying a video showing such an object depicted a solitary incident involving a stick with the National Flag in the hands of a protester, rather than a police officer.
The affidavit further says lathis are permissible equipment and that officers were trying to contain protesters who allegedly attacked them. The police have also challenged photographs, short video clips and social-media posts relied upon by petitioners, arguing that they may show isolated moments without the events immediately preceding them.
Protest Legality Under Scrutiny
The dispute centres not only on how the police responded but also on whether the march itself was authorised. Delhi Police had said before the protest that no permission had been sought or granted for a march to Parliament, while restrictions were in force in the New Delhi district.
The CJP had nevertheless called the action a peaceful “Sansad Chalo” march, organised amid protests over alleged examination paper leaks and demands for accountability from the Union government. The July 20 confrontation resulted in multiple cases being registered over allegations including rioting, assault on public servants and damage to public property; one FIR reportedly included an attempt-to-murder charge.
The police later transferred investigations into several cases to its Crime Branch and Special Cell. At the same time, petitions alleging police excesses reached the Delhi High Court, which directed authorities to preserve CCTV footage, videography and other records connected with the incident.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The July 20 confrontation raises an important question about how a democracy should handle a protest that begins peacefully but becomes confrontational. The right to dissent and peaceful assembly must be protected, but protesters also have a responsibility not to attack police personnel, damage public property or breach lawful security restrictions.
The Supreme Court has already stressed that both violence by demonstrators and excessive force by police are unacceptable, while seeking an independent examination of the competing allegations. A transparent inquiry based on complete footage, medical records and other evidence is therefore more valuable than competing claims based on selective videos or political narratives.
