The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police on three public interest litigations (PILs). The PILs allege excessive use of force during the July 20 protest march organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The Court also directed authorities to preserve CCTV footage and all relevant electronic records connected to the incident. The Court ordered authorities to preserve them until further proceedings.
Delhi High Court Issues Notice
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia granted the respondents four weeks to file their replies. The Bench listed the matter for further hearing on September 11.
The Bench ordered that CCTV footage and all relevant records remain preserved in accordance with the applicable Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). During the hearing, the Court questioned the Centre’s objection to the maintainability of the petitions. The Court observed that even if the gathering was an unlawful assembly, authorities had to follow the legal procedure prescribed for such situations.
The Bench also remarked that allegations of excessive police force raised through a public interest litigation could not simply be dismissed. The Bench said every affected individual did not have to file a separate FIR. At this stage, however, the Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the allegations. The Court also did not express any opinion on the authenticity of the videos submitted by the petitioners.
Petitioners Allege Excessive Police Force
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the protest at Jantar Mantar had begun peacefully. He said students were exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and association. He submitted that any State action must satisfy constitutional safeguards under Articles 14 and 21.
Hariharan further argued that authorities had issued no proclamation or public notice prohibiting the assembly. According to him, even if the gathering had later become unmanageable, the police had to follow due process. The police also had to issue warnings before using force. He alleged that the police used excessive and punitive force against unarmed protesters.
The petition also sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or another independent agency to investigate the incident. The petition argued that the Delhi Police could not fairly investigate allegations against its own personnel. It additionally requested preservation of CCTV footage, videos, PCR logs, body camera footage and records relating to police action. The request also included orders authorising the use of force.
Lawyers Cite Videos, SOP Violations
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that he had reviewed around 130 verified videos related to the incident. He claimed the footage showed several individuals involved in the police action. Some were either not in uniform or did not wear mandatory name badges.
Referring to one of the videos, he alleged that Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapped a woman protester. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2012 Ramlila Maidan judgment, Sankaranarayanan argued that the police failed to follow the prescribed procedure before using force. The police also failed to make announcements directing protesters to disperse. He further alleged that Delhi Police personnel, Rapid Action Force personnel, and others claiming to be police officials injuredprotesters.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh also argued that organisers had organised the gathering to peacefully express grievances relating to public examinations and education. He contended that the Delhi Police had failed to follow its own Standing Orders. He also alleged that several police personnel did not wear name plates. Singh also stressed the need to preserve body camera footage. He called it essential for ensuring a fair inquiry.
Centre Opposes Petitions
Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the petitions, arguing that they relied on selective facts and social media videos, which could potentially be tampered with.
Raju submitted that videos also showed police personnel being injured and claimed the crowd had turned violent by damaging police vehicles and resorting to stone-pelting, making police intervention necessary.
He further argued that the petitioners had not exhausted remedies available under criminal law, including approaching the Magistrate, and therefore no direction for registration of an FIR could be issued. Describing the petitions as publicity-oriented and not maintainable, he urged the Court not to issue notice.
Delhi High Court Sets September 11 Hearing
After hearing submissions from both sides, the Delhi High Court nevertheless issued notice to the respondents. Along with directing preservation of CCTV footage and other electronic evidence, the Bench fixed the matter for further hearing on September 11.
The Court’s directions are limited to preserving evidence and seeking responses from the authorities. The merits of the allegations and the authenticity of the material placed before the Court will be examined in the subsequent stages of the proceedings.
Read more on ANI.
Follow The World Times for more such updates!
