Delhi Police defends force as court orders scrutiny
Delhi Police has rejected allegations that excessive force was used against student protesters at Jantar Mantar, telling the Supreme Court that officers exercised restraint while confronting a crowd that attempted to march towards Parliament on July 20. The court, however, has decided to constitute a high-powered committee to examine competing allegations of violence by police personnel and protesters.
The police defence was presented in a counter-affidavit as the Supreme Court considered a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the handling of demonstrations linked to protests over examination paper leaks. Police said the proposed march towards Parliament had no permission and described the attempt to proceed beyond the designated protest area as unlawful.
Police estimated that more than 30,000 protesters were present around Jantar Mantar and adjoining areas, spread across roughly three kilometres, while about 5,000 police personnel had been deployed to manage the gathering. The affidavit said sections of the crowd breached barricades and the situation deteriorated as demonstrators attempted to advance towards Parliament.
Authorities maintained that force was applied in stages and only after attempts at crowd control failed. They disputed allegations that their response amounted to indiscriminate violence, arguing that photographs and video clips cited by petitioners presented an incomplete account of the confrontation.
The police also alleged that anti-social elements and people with criminal records had entered the demonstration and contributed to violence. More than 240 police and security personnel were injured, the affidavit said, while around 200 protesters and other members of the public suffered injuries. The figures presented to the court are higher than some initial assessments issued immediately after the July 20 confrontation.
Petitioners have offered a sharply different account. They have alleged indiscriminate baton charges, use of tear gas, electronic batons and projectile weapons against demonstrators, many of whom were students. One of the petitions specifically challenges the alleged use of pellet guns for civilian crowd control.
The Supreme Court had already found that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case warranting an independent and impartial examination. Material placed before the court included claims that students sustained pellet and rubber-bullet injuries, that one person suffered serious damage to his eyesight and that journalists and other civilians were assaulted. The court has also taken note of allegations that protesters attacked police personnel with stones and other objects.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana has sought to keep scrutiny focused on both sides of the confrontation. Earlier proceedings produced the court's observation that neither a police officer who used excessive force nor a criminal posing as a student protester should receive protection.
The court had previously directed authorities to preserve CCTV recordings, drone footage, body-camera recordings, police wireless communications and other evidence connected with the demonstrations. It also ordered protection of protesters' personal and digital information and directed that children below 18 without criminal antecedents who had been detained or arrested in connection with the protests be released.
The July 20 confrontation developed after protesters participating in the youth-led movement gathered at Jantar Mantar and attempted to march towards Parliament. The campaign had grown around anger over examination irregularities and demands for greater accountability in the education system. Police used batons and tear gas as demonstrators pushed towards restricted areas, while protesters accused the authorities of attempting to suppress a largely student-driven movement.
The dispute has consequently moved beyond the question of whether police were entitled to stop an unauthorised march. The proceedings now centre on whether the methods employed were proportionate to the threat faced and whether individual officers or protesters crossed legal limits.
The police defence was presented in a counter-affidavit as the Supreme Court considered a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the handling of demonstrations linked to protests over examination paper leaks. Police said the proposed march towards Parliament had no permission and described the attempt to proceed beyond the designated protest area as unlawful.
Police estimated that more than 30,000 protesters were present around Jantar Mantar and adjoining areas, spread across roughly three kilometres, while about 5,000 police personnel had been deployed to manage the gathering. The affidavit said sections of the crowd breached barricades and the situation deteriorated as demonstrators attempted to advance towards Parliament.
Authorities maintained that force was applied in stages and only after attempts at crowd control failed. They disputed allegations that their response amounted to indiscriminate violence, arguing that photographs and video clips cited by petitioners presented an incomplete account of the confrontation.
The police also alleged that anti-social elements and people with criminal records had entered the demonstration and contributed to violence. More than 240 police and security personnel were injured, the affidavit said, while around 200 protesters and other members of the public suffered injuries. The figures presented to the court are higher than some initial assessments issued immediately after the July 20 confrontation.
Petitioners have offered a sharply different account. They have alleged indiscriminate baton charges, use of tear gas, electronic batons and projectile weapons against demonstrators, many of whom were students. One of the petitions specifically challenges the alleged use of pellet guns for civilian crowd control.
The Supreme Court had already found that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case warranting an independent and impartial examination. Material placed before the court included claims that students sustained pellet and rubber-bullet injuries, that one person suffered serious damage to his eyesight and that journalists and other civilians were assaulted. The court has also taken note of allegations that protesters attacked police personnel with stones and other objects.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana has sought to keep scrutiny focused on both sides of the confrontation. Earlier proceedings produced the court's observation that neither a police officer who used excessive force nor a criminal posing as a student protester should receive protection.
The court had previously directed authorities to preserve CCTV recordings, drone footage, body-camera recordings, police wireless communications and other evidence connected with the demonstrations. It also ordered protection of protesters' personal and digital information and directed that children below 18 without criminal antecedents who had been detained or arrested in connection with the protests be released.
The July 20 confrontation developed after protesters participating in the youth-led movement gathered at Jantar Mantar and attempted to march towards Parliament. The campaign had grown around anger over examination irregularities and demands for greater accountability in the education system. Police used batons and tear gas as demonstrators pushed towards restricted areas, while protesters accused the authorities of attempting to suppress a largely student-driven movement.
The dispute has consequently moved beyond the question of whether police were entitled to stop an unauthorised march. The proceedings now centre on whether the methods employed were proportionate to the threat faced and whether individual officers or protesters crossed legal limits.