New Delhi [India], July 22 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police on three public interest litigations alleging excessive use of force by police during the July 20 protest march organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and directed the authorities to preserve CCTV footage and all other relevant electronic records relating to the incident.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia granted the respondents four weeks to file their replies and listed the matter for further hearing on September 11.
The Court directed that CCTV footage and other relevant records be preserved in accordance with the applicable Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
During the hearing, the Bench questioned the Centre’s objection to the maintainability of the petitions and observed that even if the gathering was an unlawful assembly, there was a prescribed legal procedure for dealing with such situations.
“We have some questions for you. Was this an isolated incident? Perhaps not. Even if this was an unlawful assembly, there is a procedure to deal with it,” the Bench remarked while hearing Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju.
The Court further observed that where issues of alleged police excess are raised through a PIL, it cannot simply ask every affected individual to lodge a separate FIR. It clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the allegations or the authenticity of the videos at this stage but directed the respondents to file their response.
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Bench observed that apart from individual criminal liability, such incidents could also give rise to a public law remedy. It therefore directed the authorities to preserve all relevant records while the matter remains under consideration.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the protest at Jantar Mantar had begun peacefully, with students exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and association. He submitted that any State action had to satisfy the constitutional tests under Articles 14 and 21.
He contended that no proclamation or public notice prohibiting the assembly had been issued and that even if the gathering had become unmanageable, the police were required to follow due process, including issuing warnings before using force. He alleged that excessive and punitive force was used against unarmed protesters.
Hariharan sought constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or another independent agency to investigate the incident, arguing that the Delhi Police could not investigate allegations against its own personnel. He also sought preservation of CCTV footage, videos, PCR logs, body camera footage and all records relating to the police action, including orders authorising the use of force. He further sought a high-level inquiry into the incident.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that he had reviewed around 130 verified videos relating to the incident. According to him, the videos showed several persons involved were either not in police uniform or were not wearing mandatory name badges. Referring to one video, he alleged that Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapped a woman protester.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2012 Ramlila Maidan judgment, Sankaranarayanan argued that the police failed to follow the prescribed procedure before using force, including issuing announcements asking protesters to disperse. He alleged that protesters suffered injuries due to the actions of the Delhi Police, Rapid Action Force personnel and others claiming to be police personnel, and urged the Court to intervene.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that the gathering was organised to peacefully express grievances over issues concerning public examinations and education. Referring to the Ramlila Maidan judgment, he argued that the Delhi Police Standing Orders had not been followed and alleged that police personnel were not wearing name plates. He also sought preservation of body camera footage, stating that it would be essential for a fair inquiry.
Appearing for the Centre, ASG S.V. Raju opposed the petitions and argued that they were based on selective facts and social media videos, which could be tampered with. He submitted that videos also showed police personnel being injured and that the crowd had turned violent, damaged police vehicles and resorted to stone-pelting, following which the police were required to act.
Raju contended that the petitioners had not exhausted the remedies available under criminal law, including approaching the Magistrate, and argued that no direction for registration of an FIR could be issued in the facts of the case. Describing the petitions as publicity-oriented and not maintainable, he urged the Court not to issue notice.
After hearing both sides, the High Court issued notice to the respondents, directed preservation of all relevant records, including CCTV footage and other electronic evidence, and fixed the matter for hearing on September 11. (ANI)
Related reading
