The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Government of India and the Delhi Police in response to three public interest litigations regarding allegations of excessive force used by law enforcement during a protest march on July 20, organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The court instructed the relevant authorities to preserve CCTV footage and any electronic records linked to this incident.

A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia has granted the respondents a timeframe of four weeks to respond to the petitions. Furthermore, the case has been scheduled for further deliberation on September 11. The court reiterated the necessity for preserving the audiovisual records as per the applicable Standard Operating Procedure.

Discussion During the Hearing

During a session of the court, the judges challenged the Centre’s argument against the legitimacy of the petitions. They observed that even if the assembly was deemed unlawful, specific legal protocols must be adhered to in such situations. Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked that the matter appears not to be isolated, contemplating the broader implications of the alleged police action.

The Bench indicated that when public interest litigations raise concerns about possible police misconduct, it would not be appropriate to expect every aggrieved individual to file a separate First Information Report (FIR). While the court has not yet formed an opinion regarding the veracity of the claims or the authenticity of the submitted videos, it has mandated that the relevant parties provide prompt responses.

Referring to precedents set by the Supreme Court, the judges highlighted that claims surrounding police misconduct may justify public law remedies beyond individual criminal liabilities. Consequently, the court has ordered the preservation of all pertinent records while the case remains under examination.

Arguments Presented by Petitioners

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, representing one of the petitioners, contended that the protest at Jantar Mantar commenced peacefully, with participants exercising their constitutional right to assembly. He argued that any measures taken by police must satisfy constitutional standards under Articles 14 and 21. Hariharan also pointed out that no formal prohibitions on assembly were issued, indicating that the police were required to follow due process, including warnings, before resorting to force.

Hariharan advocated for the establishment of a Special Investigation Team or an independent body to investigate the allegations, asserting that the Delhi Police could not impartially investigate claims against its own personnel. He called for the preservation of all relevant audiovisual material, including CCTV footage, police control room logs, and documentation related to the orders for force application.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who has reviewed approximately 130 verified videos of the event, argued that several individuals depicted were not in uniform or lacked proper identification. He alleged that certain officers were involved in inappropriate conduct, including an incident where a woman protester was reportedly slapped by a senior officer. Sankaranarayanan emphasised the need for adherence to proper procedure before force was employed, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.

Counterarguments by the Centre

In defence of the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the petitions, alleging that they were based on selective facts and viral social media content that may have been altered. He claimed that the footage also depicted injuries sustained by police personnel and asserted that the crowd’s actions necessitated a police response due to incidents of violence and damage to property.

Raju argued that the petitioners had not pursued available remedies within the criminal justice system, including options for appealing to a Magistrate. He described the petitions as lacking merit and requested that the court dismiss them accordingly. After deliberating on the positions presented by both parties, the High Court issued notice to the respondents, enforced the preservation of relevant records, and set the next hearing for September 11.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share