Not an isolated incident; file your response, preserve CCTV footage: Delhi HC to police on excesses against Jantar Mantar protestors

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Central government and the Delhi Police on two public interest litigation petitions flagging the police excesses against Jantar Mantar protesters in Delhi on July 20 and 21.

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that the incidents flagged by the petitioners were not isolated incidents in which the Court can ask the affected parties to lodge a private complaint.

"Had it been an isolated incident, situation would have been different. You (police) may have been correct in asking them to go to police to lodge a private complaint. But this is not such an (isolated) incident," the Court said.

Hence, it directed the police to file their response.

Pertinently, the Court also asked the police to preserve CCTV footage and other video evidence.

"Issue notice. On behalf of Delhi Police and UOI, appearance has been put and notice is accepted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in these petition. Let a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents be filed in four week. Two week to petitioners to file rejoinder. In the meantime, we direct that relevant record in relation to the incident as mentioned in the writ petitions, including the CCTV footage, videography, if any shall be preserved in accordance with standard operating procedure issued by the police," the Court ordered.

The matter will be heard again on September 11.

Students from across the country and activists of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), an online satirical collective, have been protesting at Jantar Mantar and others parts of Central Delhi demanding accountability for repeated examination paper leaks and also seeking resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. 

The protestors had planned to march to the parliament house on July 20 but the Delhi Police intervened and prevented the same.

According to reports, this led to lathi charge and use of tear gas by the police in which many protestors suffered injuries.

Later, Congress party leaders including leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday staged a protest outside the residence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. They were also dragged and detained, with Gandhi suffering minor bruises during the scuffle.

Videos of the events emerged on social media in which police were seen using lathis and tear gas against the protestors.

This led to the petitions before the High Court.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said that brutality of the highest order was unleashed against the protesting students.

"The protest was happening peacefully at Jantar Mantar and this gathering. They were exercising rights guaranteed to them by the constitution the first freedom they were exercising was right to peaceful protest and assembly. The students were also protected by Article 21. Therefore, the state action would be tested under scrutiny of Article 14. Something that followed was unimaginable. Brutality to largest measure possible has been used. I am not for once saying this that the State did not have the ability to regulate the movement, channelise the movement," he said.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh also said that there was no evidence showing the protestors turning violent; yet the police unleashed violence on them.

"They had said on July 20th they will March to the parliament. Everybody essentially assembled on the 20th. Till July 19, there was no violence. the assembly started swelling on 20 because of the he information in public domain about march to the parliament and it was this assembly that was attacked. Children from all walks of life (were there). There is still not a whisper in public domain that people gathered turned violent. There are videos of several people in civil clothes sitting, they along with the police attacked the protesters," Singh said.

Hariharan then described the measures adopted by the police.

"There are a series of videos my lords will see. There are lathis with nails on them by which children are being beaten. Pellets and eletric baton were used. This is the manner in which peaceful protests will be treated?" he asked.

The lawyers then requested the Court to watch some videos of the events that unfolded.

"You are saying the force used was excessive and that it was uncalled for," the Bench queried.

Hariharan responded that even during the British colonial regime, there were warnings and safeguards adopted by the police.

"The object of the assembly was a legal object they wanted to vent their grievances about NEET exams. If my lord would see that as far as proclamation under Section 144 of the CrPC was also not there in place. There is no circular showing the proclamation was made and that the people were not allowed to assemble. In this kind of scenario, if at all it is their case that the crown turned unmanageable even then there is a particular manner in which it is to be dealt with. A warning must be given. There is no evidence to say that this was done. There is no evidence to show that whistle were blow warning children that force will be used. Even in colonial times, these were the necessities," Hariharan

Pertinently, he contended that some girl protestors were molested by policemen and there is video evidence to prove the same. Therefore, FIRs should be lodged against the guilty policemen, it was argued.

"The lady students in the protest are being molested. That is why i want you to take a look at the videos. At least the policemen who are identifiable, an FIR should be registered against them and an inquiry should be made into the entire incident. I am not saying that people who caused injury to police officers should be let off. More than 90 people have suffered injuries as far as students are concerned," Hariharan contended.

"CCTV must be preserved," Vikas Singh added.

Hariharan further alleged that some policemen can be seen molesting girls and using batons in the private parts of protesting girls. He said that the crimes should be investigated by a special investigation team (SIT).

"We are asking for preservation of all that material about who gave the directions to the police. e are seeking setting up of an SIT. We can't have Delhi Police investigating this. This has to be an independent agency. We have given material where the policemen are clearly identifiable. There are policemen molesting women, using baton in their private parts. It is so ghastly," Hariharan argued.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for one of the petitioners, said that many of the policemen were in uniform but without their name tags. They were also carrying unauthorised weapons.

He specifically highlighted the case of Additional Police Commissioner Sandeep Lamba who was seen slapping a woman without any provocation.

"I have gone through over 130 of these videos. Why the videos are relevant is that there are large number of people not wearing police uniforms; There were many in uniforms but not wearing name tags. They were carrying weapons which are not even allowed in Delhi Police. There is a video of Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman who was doing nothing. He should be summoned here and should not be spared. He is walking past the woman and slaps her across the face," Sankaranarayanan submitted.

He then explained the disproportionality of the measures adopted by the police.

"There are videos of mother and children, tear gas canisters were thrown at them. There are lathis with nails. The policeman is wearing a helmet, t-shirt and jeans. There is a video of one personnel tripping a running protester and when he falls down, four of them attack him," he said.

He also pointed out that the police staged scenes to later blame the protestors.

"There is enough video and proof. There is video of early morning; it is not verified, but it shows a car with windshield broken. There is another video of a vehicle filled with stones. This was to blame the protesters," he said.

Singh said that policemen were caught beating the protestors on their heads.

"Hitting on the head can never be permitted under the law. Body cameras of security personnel should be immediately seized. This is a very very serious case where these innocent children their families assembled there," Singh said.

Additional Solicitors General (ASG) SV Raju and Chetan Sharma, along with Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit, appeared for the Central government.

Raju said that the crowd brought a vehicle filled with stones.

"As far as the crowd is concerned, there are videos which show the crowd was indugling in stone throwing. They agree that there were vehicles with stones. Now they are trying to get away from that by saying police brought it," he alleged.

He said that if they have any complaint, they can approach the magistrate court and not the High Court under Article 226.

"They can approach the magistrate court if they want FIR to be registered. They cannot come to this court under Article 226. They have not even gone to the police for FIR. There were prohibitory orders under Section 144.

He also said that the petitions have been filed for publicity and should not be entertained.

Though the petition looks impressive at the first blush, it is not so. These petitions are only publicity seeking petitions so that they can get limelight. These are petitions with ulterior motives. Persons beaten up, allegedly beaten up, have not come forward. These petitions do not even warrant a notice. It is not a case where notices are required to be issued. It is petition to hog the limelight but not entertainable under the law. This is what I have to say at the moment. I want to take instructions," the ASG stated.

However, the Bench said that it was not an isolated incident and hence, the Court cannot ask the petitioners to lodge private complaint with the police.

"We have some questions for you Mr Raju. Was this an isolated incident? Perhaps no. Second, if this was an unlawful assembly, there is a procedure to deal with it. If these issues are being raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should go and lodge an FIR? Had it been an isolated incident, situation would have been different. You may have been correct in asking them to go to police to lodge a private complaint. But this is not such an (isolated) incident. We are not saying what they are saying is correct. We are also not in a position to verify the videos yet. Therefore, you will have to file a response," the Bench said.

[Read Live Coverage]