New Delhi- The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it would constitute a high-powered committee to examine allegations of police excesses, targeting of women protesters, and related incidents during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led student protests, particularly the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” or Parliament march in Delhi. The Bench directed that video footage and CCTV recordings of the violence be handed over to the panel and sought suggestions from all parties on the committee’s composition by evening, stating that the formal order would be issued on Wednesday.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a batch of petitions alleging disproportionate force by Delhi Police and other security forces against student protesters. The petitions also cover related incidents in other states, including Bihar. The Court observed that the issues involved the life and future of innocent students and their legitimate expectations from the system, while underlining the fundamental right to peaceful protest under Article 19.
The Court said the high-powered committee would include a former Supreme Court judge, a former High Court Chief Justice, a former CBI Director, and a retired officer of Director General of Police rank (or similar senior retired police and CBI officers). It noted that consent had already been obtained from a former CBI Director and a former DGP from a state unconnected with the protests. Parties were asked to submit suggestions on additional members, the precise mandate, and scope.
The committee will examine the video footage and CCTV recordings of the July 20 Parliament march violence and the police response. It will also inquire into allegations that female protesters were specifically targeted or molested. The Supreme Court will provide the necessary infrastructure facilities to the panel. The committee will hear every victim who approaches it and give them an opportunity to present their case. It is expected to submit recommendations from time to time rather than a single final report, after which the Court will consider necessary legal action. Parties have been granted liberty either to place issues before the Court or to approach the committee directly.
The Court noted that the petitions raise varied issues and that the states of Delhi and Bihar are involved, among others. Suggestions from all stakeholders are to be considered before the formal constitution is announced on Wednesday (August 19).
In its detailed counter-affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police (New Delhi District) Sachin Sharma, the Delhi Police told the Court that its personnel used “maximum restraint but minimum required force” against the CJP protesters at Jantar Mantar. The affidavit stated that the force was not dealing with the petitions para-wise or on merits at this stage and that its silence on any point should not be treated as an admission. The full case on use of force would be placed before the proposed committee.
According to the police, permission for a dharna had been granted only for June 20 after 5 pm, but the protesters did not vacate the venue. The agitation escalated after a call was given for a march towards Parliament on July 20, the opening day of the monsoon session. The police maintained that permission was neither sought nor granted for any “Chalo Sansad” march and that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) had been in force in the New Delhi District since June 21.
The affidavit described the crowd as having turned violent and breached multiple layers of barricades in an attempt to march on Parliament. It alleged that protesters attacked police and other security forces stationed at the barricades. Digital records, the police said, showed “disturbing visuals of big groups of protestors targeting lone police officials with stones, sticks, beating them up without any provocation almost in a mob lynching fashion.” A group was also alleged to have vandalised the building of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on Sansad Marg and used bricks from there to attack officers.
The police claimed that over 30,000 protesters, “including rioters and miscreants,” were present against a deployment of around 5,000 uniformed personnel, along with companies of CAPF, CRPF and RAF, and more than 3,600 barricades. More than 240 police personnel and uniformed officers sustained injuries, while around 200 members of the public or protesters underwent medico-legal examination. The injuries to approximately 218 protesters, the affidavit stated, “may not be qualified on account of use of any excess force.”
On the allegation of use of lathis with nails embedded in them, the police described the relevant footage as “only a solitary video.” It asserted that the object was actually a stick with a national flag attached, “possibly carried by some protestor,” and that no medico-legal certificate recorded nail injuries to any protester. Lathis were described as “an acceptable and permissible helping gear,” with protective gear issued to personnel properly accounted for and documented.
Regarding facial recognition technology (the subject of a separate petition), the affidavit stated that the system does not automatically capture, create, generate or maintain profiles of peaceful protesters. It only flags persons with prior criminal antecedents for field verification. Between July 20 and 26, 2,873 persons with matching criminal records were identified, of whom 92 had involvement in more than 10 cases and 47 were history-sheeters. The offences ranged from murder and rape to those under the POCSO and NDPS Acts. Any investigation into the protests, the police clarified, would be confined to these 2,873 persons and not extended to other protesters.
The affidavit also recorded that more than 4,600 women police personnel were deployed cumulatively across the six days of the protest to ensure the safety and dignity of female participants.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that “history-sheeters” had infiltrated the July 20 protest in which 240 policemen were injured. He told the Bench that except for the approximately 2,873 individuals with grave cases involving murder, rape, abductions and similar offences, the cases against others could be quashed. Mehta said he had no objection to quashing FIRs against student protesters and that the manner of doing so could be decided by the Court, while cases against those with serious criminal antecedents must continue.
The Court indicated that it may consider using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIRs involving only students, while cases against persons accused of grave offences would be kept open and dealt with separately. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that criminality had to be examined with reference to the object and purpose for which the students had gathered, keeping in mind their right under Article 19. Cases of peaceful student protesters were “completely distinguishable” from those of hardened criminals. The Bench emphasised that FIRs arising from the protests should not define the futures of innocent students.
Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners, including Vrinda Grover, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, N. Hariharan, Menaka Guruswamy and others, pressed for quashing of FIRs against student protesters and for the independent probe. They also raised allegations of sexual violence, online harassment of women protesters, use of plain-clothes personnel, facial recognition technology, and the need for disciplinary action against identified officers. The Court made it clear that allegations concerning women and vulnerable persons would be examined seriously by the committee, stating there could be “no excuse and no justification” for such acts.
Reacting after the hearing, Cockroach Janta Party Chief Spokesperson Saurav Das said: “When the court is asking from govt for the list of FIRs to be quashed, then why are they not submitting it to the court? But you (govt) are showing hesitancy on this in the court. Don’t play delay tactics with us. We will not accept this. They have identified around 2,800 hardened criminals; if they have to take action against them, then it is a different matter altogether. The issue relating to the students is the quashing of FIRs against them.”
The case arises from protests that began at Jantar Mantar on June 6 against alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG and CBSE examinations. The protesters had demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. On July 20, thousands of students participated in the CJP-organised march towards Parliament. Clashes ensued as sections of the crowd attempted to breach barricades. Multiple petitions were filed alleging excessive use of force, including lathi charges, tear gas, and other measures, as well as injuries to both protesters and police personnel. The Supreme Court had earlier, on July 28, directed the release of detained minors without criminal antecedents, restrained coercive action against protesting students (except those with criminal antecedents), ordered preservation of CCTV and related material, and indicated the possibility of an independent probe.
The matter will be taken up further on Wednesday for the formal announcement of the high-powered committee after receipt of suggestions from the parties.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.