‘Brutality of the largest measure possible’: Advocate in Delhi HC on police action during CJP protest march—Watch video

Describing the police action as “brutality of the largest measure”, senior advocate N Hariharan on Wednesday alleged that excessive and unwarranted force was used against peaceful protesters during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Chalo Sansad’ march, and sought a high-level judicial inquiry along with an investigation by an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT), according to PTI.

Thousands of people participated in the CJP’s ‘Chalo Sansad’ march on July 20, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged examination irregularities. The CJP has alleged that the Delhi Police used excessive force to stop the protesters from marching towards Parliament.

Appearing for the petitioners along with senior advocates Vikas Singh and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Hariharan argued that the Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF) used disproportionate force against protesters, including women and children.

The counsel submitted that the demonstrators were exercising their fundamental right to peacefully protest against alleged irregularities in the NEET examination and noted that the authorities were already aware that a march to Parliament was planned for 20 July.

Hariharan, who is also the President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), argued that while the police have the authority to “regulate” a protest, they “can’t take it out on children” by resorting to disproportionate force.

The senior advocate claimed that the protesters were unarmed students and that more than 90 of them were injured during the police action. He further alleged that police personnel assaulted women protesters and accused some officers of molestation.

Hariharan urged the court to direct the registration of an FIR against the police personnel who could be identified.

“Something that followed was unimaginable. Brutality to the largest measure possible has been used. I am not for once saying that the state did not have the ability to regulate the movement, channelise the movement… Policemen can be seen beating ladies on their private parts. Women at the protest were molested. More than 90 protesters were injured, and the numbers keep growing. I am not saying police were not injured, but it needs to be inquired what happened on the ground,” Hariharan informed the bench, according to NDTV.

Hariharan further argued that the police should have issued adequate warnings before resorting to force to disperse the crowd.

He urged the court to direct the police to place on record CCTV, drone and body-camera footage related to the incident, along with the deployment orders and records authorising the use of lathi-charge and tear gas.

Singh submitted that individuals in civil clothes joined police personnel in attacking protesters, and alleged that lathis fitted with nails, pellets and even batons capable of delivering electric shocks were used during the police action.

Singh, who is also the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), argued that children, students, lawyers and people from different sections of society were protesting over their “genuine” concerns regarding alleged examination rigging. He further contended that a police officer striking a protester on the head was “impermissible”.

Sankaranarayanan told the court that hundreds of publicly available videos showed alleged police brutality, claiming that several personnel were neither wearing name-tags nor dressed in uniform.

He alleged, “Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba is seen slapping a woman who is doing nothing. She is not moving.”

Sankaranarayanan further argued, “I can show the video right now. Let us not be scared to name our thugs in uniform when they deserve to be named. He should be summoned here and he should be asked to be accountable.”

What did ASG say?

Appearing for the Delhi Police and the Centre, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the PILs were “in the realm of guesswork” and said that if any individual had a grievance, they should approach the appropriate court with “concrete facts” to seek the registration of an FIR.

Raju claimed that the petitions were based on social media posts and were not maintainable before the court.

The senior law officer submitted that an unruly crowd had turned violent and resorted to stone-pelting, resulting in injuries to police personnel and damage to police vehicles. He also informed the court that prohibitory orders were already in force in the area.

He further argued, “There are political parties who are trying to take advantage of the facts. The so-called peaceful agitation did not remain a peaceful agitation.”

Raju also contended, “These are publicity-seeking petitions. Persons who are injured or allegedly beaten have not lodged any complaint.”

What bench said

The bench, however, observed that the allegations raised in the PILs did not relate to an “isolated incident” and directed the law officer to file a response.

Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked, “If these issues are raised in a PIL, how can you say that every individual should lodge an FIR? Had it been an isolated incident, the situation might be different.”

The bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the PILs, while adding that in cases of alleged police brutality, an affected individual could seek relief under “public law”.