New Delhi- Rajya Sabha Member John Brittas has written a detailed letter to President Droupadi Murmu seeking urgent intervention over what he described as a brutal police assault on him in the national capital. In the letter, Brittas stated that the incident took place while he was peacefully interacting with journalists in connection with the ongoing democratic protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. He said he was forcibly dragged away, bodily lifted by police personnel, assaulted inside a police vehicle and subsequently abandoned on the roadside.

Brittas began the letter by drawing the President’s attention to an “appalling incident of police brutality” perpetrated against him. He underlined that the episode raises grave questions about the rule of law, the guarantee of democratic dissent and the accountability of those entrusted with enforcing the law.

He noted that the brutality occurred within hours of the Supreme Court issuing explicit directions to safeguard peaceful protesters against illegal detention, ensure uninterrupted internet connectivity and normal Metro and railway services, and protect the free movement of people.

Detailing the sequence of events, Brittas wrote that upon learning that some youth activists were being assaulted and detained, he reached Connaught Place around 12.30 pm and was interacting with media journalists. He stated that he was simply exercising his democratic right to speak to the press. Nevertheless, Delhi Police and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel forcibly manhandled and dragged him for approximately 50 metres, despite repeated assertions by both himself and the journalists present that he is a sitting Member of Parliament. A few police personnel lifted him bodily into the air and carried him towards a police vehicle, treating a sitting Member of Parliament as though he were an object to be hauled away. There was no provocation whatsoever to justify this high-handed action, he said.

The letter records that the brutality escalated after he was put inside the vehicle. Police personnel assaulted him and pinned him to the seat. The assault continued even after he identified himself as a Member of Parliament. His status as an elected representative did not deter them from subjecting him to this degrading and physically abusive treatment. He was then abandoned on the wayside following an order from the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, who found the detention completely unlawful. Brittas stated that following the assault he continues to experience severe physical pain and discomfort. A young man from Jharkhand witnessed the incident and assisted him; his testimony needs to be secured. The concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police was aware of the assault, and the release followed instructions communicated by the DCP over phone to the personnel in the vehicle.

Brittas emphasised that these are specific and verifiable acts of brutality involving identifiable personnel, a police vehicle, a traceable chain of command and eyewitnesses. The relevant recordings made by journalists and bystanders must be examined in their entirety. He mentioned a few news report links that document the incident and bear testimony to the assault, noting that these are only illustrative and that numerous other reports and recordings need to be urgently identified, collected and preserved so that no evidence is lost and the perpetrators as well as those responsible in the chain of command are held accountable.

He reiterated that he was speaking to journalists, not committing an offence, and that nothing can justify the use of physical violence against him in the circumstances described. The incident cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider context of the ongoing protests. The previous day, several opposition leaders, including former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and Brittas himself, were detained. They were transported around Delhi for hours without adequate clarity about their destination or the purpose of the continued journey. Concerns were also raised about the denial or delay of food and essential medication to the detainees. This larger political context, he said, makes the episode particularly ominous.

Brittas wrote that the demand for the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner is being advanced through democratic mobilisation and political expression. Neither these demands nor the criticism of public institutions can be treated as a licence for the State to resort to intimidation. The Government of the day must understand that criticism of the Election Commission, the demands for the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner and the peaceful mobilisation in defence of electoral integrity are legitimate matters of democratic debate. Peaceful protest cannot be treated as a threat merely because it challenges those in power. The authorities may agree or disagree with these demands, but they cannot answer them with physical violence. The Government cannot intimidate democracy into silence. It cannot deploy the police as an instrument of political retaliation. It cannot substitute the force of the baton for the force of argument. And it cannot expect the people to surrender their constitutional freedoms merely because those in power find dissent inconvenient.

The letter points out that the police atrocities raise serious questions under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which protect freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, and Article 21 which safeguards life and personal liberty. Any restraint or detention must have a lawful basis and the use of force must be justified and proportionate. The brutal assault, the circumstances in which he was taken away, and the manner in which he was released demand urgent scrutiny under the constitutional guarantees and the applicable laws and Rules governing police conduct and detention.

Brittas also stressed the parliamentary dimension of the incident. Article 105 of the Constitution protects parliamentary freedom of speech and the institutional functioning of Parliament within its prescribed scope. He clarified that he does not claim that membership of Parliament confers immunity from the law. However, physical assault upon a sitting Member, while peacefully engaging with the media on a matter of public importance, warrants serious institutional scrutiny and constitutes a breach of privilege. The police are entrusted with upholding the law; they are not above it. A uniform cannot confer immunity for assault, unlawful detention or abuse of authority.

In the letter, Brittas fervently requested the President’s urgent intervention to seek a comprehensive report from the Union Government and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and to ensure that an independent and impartial investigation is initiated. All relevant evidence needs to be preserved immediately, including complete and unedited video recordings, vehicle identification and movement records, duty rosters, deployment orders, wireless communications, control-room logs and records concerning his detention and release. The identities of the personnel involved need to be established without delay. The role of the DCP and any other supervisory officer who was informed of the assault needs to be examined. Those found responsible, including supervisory officers where complicity or dereliction is established, must face appropriate disciplinary and criminal proceedings in accordance with law.

Brittas stated that he is placing this complaint before the President not merely as an individual who has suffered physical indignity, but as a Member of Parliament deeply concerned about the implications of such conduct for the Republic. He wrote that if even an elected representative can be beaten after identifying himself as an MP and then abandoned on the roadside for peacefully engaging with the media, what protection can an ordinary citizen expect when confronted by an arbitrary exercise of State power. This is not a demand for special treatment for an MP. It is a demand that the law protect everyone equally and that those who enforce it remain accountable to it. The strength of a democracy lies not in its capacity to suppress dissent, but in its ability to address it.

Concluding the letter, Brittas again earnestly requested the President’s urgent intervention to ensure that the police assault upon him is impartially investigated, all relevant evidence preserved, responsibility fixed, and appropriate action taken against all those found culpable. He further requested that specific directions be issued to put in place effective safeguards against any retaliation against witnesses or others who may provide evidence.