New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Central Government and Delhi Police on a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) alleging excessive use of force against protesters during the July 20 “Chalo Parliament” march from Jantar Mantar. Observing that the allegations did not relate to an isolated incident, the court directed the authorities to preserve CCTV footage, body camera recordings, videography and all other relevant digital evidence while the matter is under judicial consideration.
According to Bar & Bench report, A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notices to the respondents and granted four weeks to file their counter affidavits. The petitioners have been given two weeks thereafter to file rejoinders. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 11.
‘This Is Not an Isolated Incident’: High Court
During the hearing, the Bench rejected the Centre’s contention that individual complainants should approach the police or magistrate separately.
The Court observed that the allegations concern a large-scale public incident rather than isolated cases.
“Had it been an isolated incident, the situation would have been different. You (police) may have been correct in asking them to go to the police to lodge a private complaint. But this is not such an incident,” the Bench remarked.
The judges clarified that while they were not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the allegations at this stage, the nature and scale of the incident warranted a formal response from the authorities.
Read also: Delhi Police Protest Controversy Deepens as Supreme Court Bar Bodies Seek Independent Inquiry
Court Orders Preservation of CCTV and Digital Evidence
As an interim measure, the High Court directed the Delhi Police and other authorities to preserve all evidence connected with the incident.
The order covers:
- CCTV footage
- Body camera recordings
- Police videography
- Other digital records maintained under the Delhi Police’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
The Bench observed that preserving the material was necessary while the petitions remain under consideration.
Petitions Seek Independent Probe
The PILs seek an independent investigation into the alleged police action during the July 20 protest.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocates N. Hariharan, Vikas Singh, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that protesters, including women and children, were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly when excessive force was allegedly used.
The petitioners contended that the demonstrators were protesting against alleged irregularities in the NEET examination and demanding reforms in the examination system.
They further sought an independent inquiry, arguing that allegations against Delhi Police personnel could not be fairly investigated by the same force.
Petitioners Allege Excessive Force
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan submitted that peaceful protesters were subjected to disproportionate force.
He argued that there was no evidence showing that mandatory warnings were issued before force was used and questioned whether established procedures for dispersing assemblies had been followed.
The petitioners also alleged that some protesters, including women, were assaulted and sought registration of FIRs against any police personnel found responsible after investigation.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that publicly available videos did not show protesters turning violent before police action began and requested that CCTV and body-camera footage be preserved.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan alleged that some police personnel were not wearing identification tags and referred to videos that, according to the petitioners, required independent examination. He also sought preservation of all available evidence to facilitate a fair inquiry.
Centre Opposes the PILs
Appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the petitions.
He argued that the PILs were based primarily on social media material and were therefore not maintainable.
The ASG submitted that individuals alleging assault could approach the appropriate magistrate for registration of FIRs rather than invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
He further contended that prohibitory orders under Section 144 had been imposed and alleged that protesters had engaged in stone-pelting, necessitating police intervention.
According to the ASG, the petitions were publicity-oriented and did not merit judicial intervention.
Background of the Protest
The litigation arises from the police action during the July 20 “Chalo Parliament” march organised by supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and student groups protesting alleged examination paper leaks, seeking reforms in the National Testing Agency (NTA), and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
According to reports, Delhi Police stopped the protesters from marching towards Parliament, following which tear gas and lathi-charge were used after sections of the crowd attempted to move through police barricades.
Multiple videos circulated on social media after the incident, prompting allegations of excessive force and triggering the present PILs before the Delhi High Court.
The High Court has clarified that it has not yet examined the authenticity of the videos or the merits of the allegations and will consider the matter after receiving responses from the Centre and Delhi Police.
The case will next be heard on September 11.
