New Delhi: A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar (IPS: 1994: AGMUT cadre), alleging that police personnel used indiscriminate force against citizens during protests against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) in the national capital on October 10. The petition alleges that the police action violated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its earlier orders concerning the handling of protests, the use of force and restrictions on fundamental rights.
Filed by advocate Aman Prasad through Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Pooja Dhar, the petition seeks contempt proceedings against the Delhi Police Commissioner for alleged wilful disobedience of the Court’s directions. It claims that several unarmed citizens were detained and assaulted, women protesters were manhandled, and police personnel at protest sites operated without visible name tags or identification.
The petition is likely to be mentioned on Sunday before a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The bench is holding a Sunday sitting to hear another similar contempt petition, along with a petition filed by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy concerning the detention of political leaders in Delhi on Saturday.
Petition Alleges Police Excesses at Jantar Mantar, INA and Dilli Haat
According to the petition, protesters at Jantar Mantar, INA and Dilli Haat were subjected to physical violence during the demonstrations on October 10.
The petitioner has cited several alleged incidents of police excesses, including:
- Alleged assault near INA: A protester was allegedly lifted, thrown to the ground and beaten by police personnel.
- Incident involving Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat: The petition alleges that Farasat was dragged along the road by police personnel near the Safdarjung Airport flyover.
- Alleged assault on a young advocate: A young advocate who reportedly intervened when police personnel were allegedly pulling at a woman’s trousers near INA was allegedly beaten, sustained head injuries and was detained before being taken to a hospital in Chhatarpur Enclave.
The petitioner has argued that these alleged incidents demonstrate the use of excessive force against individuals participating in the protests.
Women Protesters Allegedly Manhandled by Male Police Officers
The contempt petition also raises allegations concerning the treatment of women protesters during the police action.
It alleges that male police officers manhandled women demonstrators and refers to videos purportedly showing a woman being dragged by her hair inside a detention bus. Another video is said to show a woman journalist being dragged across the road towards a bus.
The petition contends that the alleged conduct raises serious concerns about the treatment of women during crowd-control operations and the need for accountability among police personnel.
Journalist Ayush Tiwari Allegedly Detained Despite Showing Press Pass
The petition also refers to the alleged detention of journalist Ayush Tiwari of Scroll outside HKS Surjeet Bhawan while he was covering the protests.
According to the petitioner, Tiwari was detained despite allegedly displaying his press pass. The petition cites the incident as part of its broader allegations concerning the treatment of journalists and other individuals present at the protest sites.
Petition Cites Earlier Supreme Court Orders on Police Action During Protests
The petitioner has relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier orders in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, which concerned allegations of police excesses during student protests in Delhi in July.
The petition refers to the Court’s orders dated July 28 and August 18, under which the Supreme Court considered allegations of excessive force against protesters and constituted a High-Powered Enquiry Committee to examine alleged police excesses.
The committee was tasked with examining issues including:
- The alleged use of excessive force against protesters.
- The treatment of women protesters during police action.
- The conduct of police personnel involved in crowd-control operations.
- Accountability of officers within the chain of command.
The petitioner contends that the alleged incidents during the October 10 protests must be examined in light of the principles and directions laid down in those proceedings.
October 9 Supreme Court Order on Restrictions During Protests Also Invoked
The contempt petition also relies on the Supreme Court’s October 9 order in M.A. Baby v. Union of India, which concerned restrictions on public transport during protests.
According to the petition, the Court had emphasised that restrictions on public transport must be proportionate and that essential services could not be subjected to a blanket prohibition in the name of controlling potential crowd movements.
The petitioner alleges that the restrictions imposed during the October 10 protests violated these principles. The measures cited in the petition include:
- The closure of 45 out of 57 metro stations.
- Road blockades and restrictions on movement.
- A shutdown of mobile internet services in parts of Central Delhi.
The petitioner argues that these measures imposed excessive restrictions on citizens and were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s observations regarding proportionality and the protection of fundamental rights.
Petition Raises Concern Over Police Personnel Without Visible Identification
Another issue highlighted in the petition is the alleged deployment of police personnel at protest sites without visible name tags or identification.
The petitioner has argued that the absence of visible identifiers raises concerns about accountability, particularly during crowd-control operations involving allegations of assault or excessive force.
The plea refers to the Supreme Court’s earlier observations regarding the identification of officers involved in such operations and contends that compliance with identification requirements is essential for ensuring accountability.
Supreme Court Asked to Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against Delhi Police Commissioner
The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to initiate contempt proceedings against Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar for alleged wilful disobedience of its earlier orders.
The plea argues that the alleged use of force, treatment of women protesters, detention of a journalist, absence of visible police identification and restrictions on public movement must be considered in the context of the Court’s previous directions.
It also invokes the constitutional principles protecting the right of citizens to assemble peacefully and express dissent. According to the petitioner, police action during protests must remain proportionate, and the possibility of public disorder cannot justify blanket restrictions on fundamental rights.
The petitioner has sought appropriate further directions from the Supreme Court to address the alleged violations and ensure accountability.
The allegations contained in the contempt petition have not been established by the Court. Any determination of contempt or liability would depend on the proceedings and the Court’s assessment of the material placed before it.
Read also: Why A Supreme Court Petition Is Challenging CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s Appointment
