'Not An Isolated Incident': Delhi HC Questions Police Stand, Seeks Reply On PILs Alleging Excessive Force During CJP Protest, Orders CCTV Preservation
· Free Press Journal
Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Delhi Police and the Union Government on a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) alleging excessive use of force against students during the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) "Sansad Chalo" march over the alleged NEET paper leak on July 20.
Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.
According to LiveLaw, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the authorities to file their counter affidavits within four weeks. The Court also ordered preservation of all relevant records, including CCTV footage and videography, related to the incident. The matter will next be heard on September 11.
Court questions police stand
During the hearing, the bench questioned the Delhi Police's argument that individual victims should pursue separate legal remedies instead of a PIL.
"Is it a case of some isolated incidents? Perhaps not. If it was an unlawful assembly, as you say, there is law on how to deal with it. If these issues are raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should lodge an FIR?" the Court observed as per Live Law.
The High Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the truthfulness of the allegations or the authenticity of the videos relied upon by the petitioners. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the bench observed that alleged violations of fundamental rights arising from police action could also be examined under public law.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court directed preservation of "the relevant record in relation to the incident as mentioned in the writ petitions, including CCTV footage and videography, if any," in accordance with the standard operating procedures issued by the Delhi Police and the Union Government.
‘Seven Protests Across India’: Viral Instagram Video Questions Lack Of Mainstream Media Coverage | WATCHPetitioners allege excessive force
As reported by LiveLaw, the petitioners alleged that the July 20 protest began peacefully and that the police resorted to disproportionate force. Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners claimed that students were beaten with lathis, tear gas and other measures were used without following due procedure, and sought an independent probe into the incident.
One of the petitioners alleged, "There are policemen who were molesting women, beating them on private parts. It is so ghastly... At least identifiable policemen, against them FIRs should be there. It is all in videos. An enquiry be made into the entire incident."
Another petitioner alleged that verified videos showed senior police officers assaulting protesters and argued that authorities had failed to follow the Supreme Court's guidelines on dispersing crowds.
Dharmendra Pradhan's Resignation Letter Goes Viral Amid CJP Protest; Here Is The TruthCentre, Delhi Police oppose PILs
Opposing the petitions, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the PILs were based on unverified social media videos and suppressed material facts. He maintained that the protest had turned violent, with police personnel injured and government property damaged.
According to LiveLaw, the ASG argued, "The petition, though it looks very attractive at first blush, is not so. It is based on suppression of facts and social media recordings. Social media is known to be tampered with. These are all publicity petitions with ulterior motives."
He also contended that those claiming assault should pursue appropriate legal remedies instead of invoking the court's public interest jurisdiction.
According to the Delhi Police, nine FIRs have been filed in connection with the alleged violence, stone-pelting, and vandalism during the march. The charges include rioting, assaulting public servants, destroying public property, and attempting to murder a Rapid Action Force (RAF) member.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had declined urgent listing of a similar plea, orally observing, "Don't drag Court into all this. It will come up tomorrow." The Supreme Court, too, refused urgent listing of a similar plea earlier in the day, remarking, "Don't waste our time, and don't waste your time."