Right to peaceful protest guaranteed, police excesses can be examined: Supreme Court

“There should be a protocol in place. If they want to agitate on an issue… They should be provided with proper space… There should be no restriction or impediment in that. But if there is someone else, some anti-social element, or somebody has done anything wrong, that of course can be taken care of,” the CJI said.

The CJI advised all sides not to adopt an adversarial approach. “If there are excesses committed, yes, those should be independently looked into. (It) should be examined that who are the persons responsible?

What kind of excesses have been committed? What are the preventive measures and mandatory guidelines to ensure (such incidents are not repeated)?” he said.

The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, fixed Tuesday to hear the petitions. Although the bench had initially fixed Monday to hear two of these petitions, counsels for some fresh petitioners requested that they be heard as well.

Advocate Fauzia Shakeel, appearing for Jha, referred to the alleged police firing on protesters in Bihar. “Our petition has comprehensive information along with the use of AK-47 in Siwan yesterday. That has all the updated data,” she said.

Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju, representing families of police personnel allegedly attacked by some protestors, sought to be heard, too. “We would like to participate, present our perspective”, he said, urging the court, “protect these police as well in uniform”.

Stating that there was “no question of defending excesses”, Potaraju argued for the “rights of the policemen in uniform” who “are subject to discipline”. “There are videos circulating. They have been kicked, lynched literally,” he said.

Justice Bagchi said the matter would have to be looked at holistically and that “all injuries to individuals, be it a police officer or protestors, are of equal concern”. He said the court would “call upon the state to explain why adequate state funds were not given to police to deal with these large demonstrations”, for protective gear like helmets, etc. “We would like to present that perspective,” Potaraju said.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh said, “Actually, Your Lordships will have to pass an all-India order. This is a problem in the entire country.”

Jha’s plea sought a direction to states and Union Territories to register FIRs on allegations of police brutality and disproportionate police action against peaceful protestors between July 20 and July 25.

It sought a probe into these FIRs by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising the Director General of Police and two senior women IPS officers not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, guided by a retired High Court judge and monitored by the Supreme Court.

He urged the court to direct the states and UTs to preserve videos circulating on social media of “disproportionate use of police force and identification of personnel deployed (including those in civil dress)”.

His plea also sought directions for preservation and disclosure by the states of their Section 163 order (restraining public gatherings); communication refusing permission for the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march in Delhi; operational and deployment plans; dispersal warnings; CCTV, drone, police and bodycam footage; barricade maps and exit routes; orders authorising tear gas, lathi use, detention or arrest; the list of injured protesters and police personnel; and medico-legal records.

He sought directions to initiate criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the errant officers.