Declining to accept the Delhi Police argument that aggrieved protesters must individually pursue action against alleged brutalities and excessive use of force during the ‘Chalo Sansad’ march on July 20, organised by the Cockroach Janta Party, the Delhi High Court Wednesday agreed to hear two public interest litigations on the issue.
“Is it a case of some isolated individual incidents? Perhaps no. If it was an unlawful assembly as you say, subject to further submissions and records, there is a law on how to deal with it. There is a Supreme Court judgment (that prescribes circumstances and extent of use of force by police). If these issues are being raised in this PIL, how can you say every individual should go and lodge an FIR? If it is an isolated incident, you would have been correct in (saying), approach the magistrate and police station or lodge a private complaint, but this is not such an incident as is being asserted. We are not saying they (petitioners) are correct. Therefore, we will only ask you to file your responses,” Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya observed.
The bench of Chief Justice Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the police to file responses within four weeks and to preserve video footage and other records as per the Standard Operating Procedure.
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a lawyer who sought its intervention in the ongoing protests.
“Don’t waste our time and your time. Your time is more valuable than ours,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant told the lawyer who said he had a collection of videos that he would show if the bench permitted.
The CJI, heading the bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, said, “We are not interested in videos. We don’t have time to watch.”
In the Delhi High Court, two PILs, one by advocate Umesh Kumar and another by Delhi resident Anshul Kumar, sought directions for an independent inquiry into alleged police excesses against protesters, preferably a judicial inquiry. Publicly available videos of the alleged police excesses were added to the petition in a Google Drive link.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, opposed the PILs, saying they should not be entertained. Raju said that aggrieved or injured persons had the remedy to approach the police or a magistrate first, but the court did not agree with this suggestion.
Under BNSS, a magistrate is empowered to direct the police to investigate cognizable offences.
Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and N Hariharan, representing Umesh Kumar, listed instances of alleged police brutalities.
Sankaranarayanan told the bench that police used lathis with nails to disperse protesters. “This kind of violence and excessive force, if the constitutional court does not step in, is a licence for police to get away with this,” he said.
“Many (police/armed personnel) were without uniform, but they were armed with lathis and excessive shock-inducing batons. Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba was seen slapping a woman; let us not be scared of naming names, they should be held accountable… It was completely unprovoked, and he slapped a woman across the face,” Sankaranarayanan said.
He also cited the 2012 Supreme Court verdict in the Ramlila Maidan case to underline the protocol to be followed while dispersing crowds. “The first step you take is to follow your protocol and have announcements on dispersal (of unlawful assembly), and have water cannons. I believe they had one water cannon here, but they did not deploy it.. (SC ruling says) tear gas will be the last option, and when thrown, it has to be thrown away from them, not towards them. But here canisters were thrown at them (the protesters)…at mothers, children,” Sankaranarayanan said.
Hariharan said the police gave no warning to protesters before using force.
“If at all it is their (police) case that the crowd turned unmanageable, there is a particular manner in which it has to be dealt with, with warning. Not a single instance to show where a warning was given, no whistle blown saying that violence will be used in this fashion. Even in colonial times, these were the basic measures that had to be adhered to. And force has to be proportionate to the cause and cannot be a situation where police are taking it out on children; it is retributive in nature. They were unarmed people,” he said.
A third PIL, seeking an independent inquiry into the “wrongful confinement” of activist Sonam Wangchuk and others on July 18, was dismissed by the High Court, noting that the issue had already been addressed by the court in a petition by Wangchuk’s wife Gitanjali Angmo, to her satisfaction. Wangchuk was forcibly removed from the protest site by Delhi Police and taken to the Safdarjung Hospital. He was later moved to the Medanta Hospital in Gurgaon.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Wednesday condemned what it said was “the brutal lathi charge on innocent students, which resulted in serious injuries.” It said that members of the legal fraternity, including members of the SCBA, were also injured in the incident and that “use of excessive and disproportionate force against peaceful students and members of the Bar is deeply disturbing and wholly unacceptable in a democratic society.”
The SCBA urged authorities to “conduct an immediate, impartial and time-bound inquiry” into the matter and “take appropriate action in accordance with law”. The Bar body said it “stands in solidarity with all those injured and reiterates its commitment to protecting constitutional rights, human dignity and the rule of law”.
Security forces clash with demonstrators at a protest site near Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, on July 20. (Express Photo By Amit Mehra) 
Share
