The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stepped into the controversy surrounding the police action during the “Chalo Sansad” demonstrations, directing Delhi Police to preserve CCTV footage, videography and all other relevant evidence linked to the protests while issuing notices to the Centre and Delhi Police over allegations of excessive force against demonstrators.
A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the order while hearing two public interest petitions alleging that students and activists participating in the protest were subjected to disproportionate police action.
The Bench directed the respondents to submit their replies within four weeks and fixed September 11 as the next date of hearing. It also instructed authorities to ensure that all electronic and documentary evidence relating to the incidents remains intact until further orders.
“Issue notice… In the meantime, we direct that the relevant records in relation to the incident, including CCTV footage and videography, if any, shall be preserved in accordance with the standard operating procedure issued by the police,” the court ordered.
Court Says Allegations Cannot Be Treated as Isolated Incidents
During the hearing, the High Court disagreed with the government’s contention that individuals alleging police assault should pursue private criminal remedies by approaching police or magistrates.
The Bench observed that the allegations related to a large public protest and therefore could not be viewed as isolated incidents requiring only individual complaints.
“Had it been an isolated incident, the situation would have been different… But this is not such an incident,” the Bench observed.
The judges clarified that they were not expressing any opinion on whether the allegations were true but held that the seriousness of the claims warranted a formal response from the authorities.
Petitioners Allege Excessive Force Against Protesters
Senior advocates representing the petitioners argued that demonstrators were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest and alleged that police used excessive force while dispersing the crowd.
According to the petitions, protesters were subjected to lathi-charge, tear gas, electric batons and physical assault after attempting to march towards Parliament. The petitioners also alleged that more than 90 protesters sustained injuries and claimed that several women demonstrators were assaulted during the operation.
The petitions sought registration of FIRs against the officers involved, constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), preservation of electronic evidence, seizure of body-camera recordings and protection for protesters from coercive action.
Lawyers further alleged that some police personnel were either in plain clothes or were not wearing proper identification badges, making it difficult to identify those involved in the alleged incidents.
Centre Defends Police Action
Appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the petitions, arguing that the demonstration had turned violent and that police personnel were injured while attempting to control the crowd.
He told the court that prohibitory orders under Section 144 were in force and claimed that video evidence showed protesters engaging in stone-pelting.
The government further argued that the petitions selectively relied on social media videos while ignoring material allegedly showing violence by sections of the crowd.
Raju maintained that anyone alleging assault could seek remedies under criminal law by approaching the police or the jurisdictional magistrate instead of invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
Separate Plea on Sonam Wangchuk Dismissed
In a separate matter, the High Court declined to entertain a PIL seeking an independent probe into the removal of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar during his hunger strike.
The court observed that Wangchuk’s wife had already raised the issue in earlier proceedings and held that if any further grievance remained, the petitioner was free to pursue remedies available under criminal law.
The Bench also noted that any demand for a Special Investigation Team would ordinarily arise only after registration of an FIR and clarified that the petitioner could approach the appropriate authority under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The matter concerning the police action during the “Chalo Sansad” protest will now be heard again on September 11, after the Centre and Delhi Police file their responses.
Q1. What did the Delhi High Court order in the Chalo Sansad protest case?
The High Court directed Delhi Police to preserve CCTV footage, videography and all relevant evidence while issuing notices to the Centre and Delhi Police.
Q2. Why did the High Court issue notices?
The notices were issued on petitions alleging excessive police force against protesters during the Chalo Sansad demonstrations.
Q3. What is the Centre’s stand?
The Centre argued that the protest had turned violent, police personnel were injured, and petitioners should pursue remedies through criminal law instead of writ petitions.
Q4. When will the case be heard next?
The Delhi High Court has listed the matter for hearing on September 11.
