The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the authorities to preserve CCTV footage, videos and all other relevant records related to the alleged police brutality against protesters during the Cockroach Janata Party’s (CJP) march to Parliament in the national capital.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia ordered the materials to be preserved as per the standard operating procedures (SOP) issued by the Delhi Police or the Union government.
The court also sought responses from the Center and Delhi Police on the petitions, which seek a special probe into the alleged excessive use of force, register FIRs against police personnel, produce deployment and operations records, and take disciplinary action against the officers involved.
The case was referred for hearing on September 11.
Also Read: Monsoon Parliament session live: Rahul Gandhi to hold press conference soon; The NDA against the opposition adjourns both houses
“Issuance of notice. In the meantime, we direct to maintain the relevant record with regard to the incident as mentioned in the order, including CCTV and video footage, if any, as per the standard operating procedures issued by the Delhi Police or the Union of India. Exhibit No. 11.9,” the court said in its order.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate N Hariharan said the protest started peacefully at Jantar Mantar but later witnessed “brutality as extreme as possible”. He maintained that no warning or whistle was given before force was used, and claimed that the police’s actions were disproportionate and retaliatory.
Hariharan further alleged that unarmed protesters were “beaten black and blue”, female protesters were harassed and more than 90 people were injured. He urged the court to direct registration of FIRs against specific officers and order an investigation into the entire incident.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh stated that although the gathering had increased in size by July 20, it had remained peaceful throughout and that the authorities themselves had not alleged that the gathering had turned violent.
He claimed that police officers, accompanied by several people wearing civilian clothes, attacked the demonstrators without provocation, and stressed that there was no allegation that the demonstrators resorted to violence.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said many of the personnel involved in police work were not wearing military uniform. Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba was accused of physically assaulting a woman standing on the sidelines and urged the court to summon the officer and hold him accountable. Referring to the videos allegedly depicting the incident, he alleged indiscriminate use of tear gas, lathi charge, and physical assault, including against women, mothers and family members present at the protest.
He told the court that he had reviewed more than 100 videos documenting alleged instances of excessive force, and said judicial intervention was necessary to prevent the normalization of such behavior.
Police deny allegations of brutality
Opposing the petitions, Delhi Police said the protest did not remain peaceful and videos showed policemen being injured. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre, while Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Senior Advocate SV Raju opposed the petitions on behalf of the authorities.
Raju confirmed that the crowd became unruly, resorted to violence and threw stones at police officers. He said people alleging cognizable crimes should approach a judge under available legal remedies, including Section 156(3), and claimed that the petitions were based on selective videos on social media while suppressing material facts.
Describing the petitions as “publicity seeking petitions”, Raju asserted that the aggrieved persons themselves had not approached the court and said the petitions did not warrant issuance of notice.
But the bench noted that the matter was “not an isolated incident.” She noted that if it were an isolated incident, the police’s claim that affected persons could file private complaints before a judge might be justified.
“If these issues are raised in the PIL, how can you say that everyone has to go and file an FIR? If it had been an isolated incident, the situation would have been different. Maybe you were right in asking them to go to the police to file a private complaint. But this is not an (isolated) incident. We are not saying what they are saying is true. We are also not in a position to verify the videos yet. So, you will have to file a response,” said Par and. seat.
