The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 23) heard pleas seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into alleged police excesses against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protesters at Jantar Mantar, and asked the Centre and state government to respond to the matter. Seeking an explanation, the Delhi HC noted that there are established laws to deal with protesters, and observed that the incident could not have been “isolated.”
The matter was heard by a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, who also directed police to preserve CCTV footage, videography and other digital records related to the incident. This comes after the Chief Justice of India (CJI) dismissed a separate petition, saying, “Don’t waste our time.”
What Did the Delhi HC Say?
The court said the matter would next be heard on September 11. The bench remarked, “Is it a case of some isolated individual incident? Perhaps no. This is one. Number two, if it was an unlawful assembly as you say, it’s subject to further arguments and subject to further submissions. There is a law how to deal with it. If these issues are being raised in the PIL, how can you say that every individual should go and lodge an FIR,” the court told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju.
Also Read:CJP Protest Turns Violent Again, 5 Cops Injured as Miscreants Throw Stones at Police
The court further said, “Issue notice. In the meantime, we direct that the relevant record, including the CCTV footage, videography, if any, shall be preserved.”
What More Did the Petitioners Want, and What Did Police Say?
Representing the police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju termed the pleas “publicity seeking petitions” filed by individuals for “hogging limelight.” Raju added that the agitation did not remain peaceful, citing videos allegedly showing injuries to policemen and damage to police vehicles.
Senior advocates N Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, maintained that the protest was peaceful and sought production orders authorising the use of force, identification of the officers responsible, and registration of FIRs against errant personnel.
How Did Various Courts React to the Matter?
Chief Justice Surya Kant dismissed a plea in the Supreme Court on July 22 that had urged the top court to take suo motu cognisance of alleged violations of fundamental rights and police brutality. The CJI said the lawyer raising the issue should not “waste the time” of the justices and the court. “Don’t waste our time and yours,” the CJI said, adding, “We don’t want to watch any videos.”
The petitioner had also called for the constitution of an independent judicial inquiry by a sitting Supreme Court bench, and sought directions for the registration of appropriate FIRs against erring officials of the Delhi Police and other concerned authorities. The plea further alleged that protesters were harassed and prevented from continuing their demonstration, arguing that the incident raises serious constitutional questions regarding the limits of police powers in dispersing peaceful assemblies.
The Delhi High Court on July 21 had refused to urgently list a petition concerning the “excessive use of force” against students by the Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force personnel, saying, “Don’t drag the court into all this.”
However, the Uttarakhand High Court termed the government’s action “gundagardi” (hooliganism) and criticised the state over the detention of Uttarakhand Parivartan Party chief Prabhat Dhyani, who was travelling to Delhi to participate in the protest called by the CJP.