CJP protests: Supreme Court mulls panel with ex-judge, former CBI chief

“We have obtained consent of a former director general of CBI to be a member, a very eminent officer who retired a couple of years back. We have also obtained consent of a former director general of police of a state, which has nothing to do with this. He is also a retired officer,” the CJI said.

CJI Kant told the parties that the two options were kept open as the court did not want anyone to raise any allegations in the future against the presence of the CBI official. “We don’t want to disclose the names because we don’t want any embarrassment to the officials. Out of the two, who do you think we should include in the committee? Or you leave it to us,” the CJI said.

The court said that if the parties provide their suggestions on the committee’s terms of reference, the order may be out on Wednesday itself. “Once your suggestions come, we will be able to release the order tomorrow,” the CJI said.

“We are quite sure that the committee will give an immediate voice and audience to any victim who approaches it,” the CJI added. “We will await the recommendations which the committee will make from time to time, and the necessary legal consequences must follow.”

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led July 20 student protest and march in Delhi saw clashes between protesters and security personnel, who used lathis and tear gas to disperse crowds marching to Parliament. There are also allegations of security forces using pellet guns and surveilling students using facial recognition technology.

Panel will look into all issues: CJI

To a counsel representing a woman, who alleged she was being attacked on social media for participating in the protest, the CJI said the committee will look into allegations concerning sexual assault and online harassment and victimisation of other vulnerable persons through social media.

“Whosoever is responsible, there can be no excuse and no justification. It must be taken seriously and taken to its logical conclusion. That is why we are constituting a high-powered committee. The committee will look into each and every aspect of these matters,” CJI Kant said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that facial recognition technology employed at the site only registers the details of those who already have criminal records and that except for 2,873 such individuals, who have grave cases involving grievous offences of murder, rape, abductions, etc., the cases against others can be quashed.

“FIRs against student protestors must be quashed. How to do… your lordships can decide. Anti-social elements who infiltrated have to be probed,” he said.

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover demanded compensation for two people who allegedly suffered pellet gun injuries.

Another counsel appearing for families of police personnel injured in the violence said they too should be provided compensation.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for a petitioner, said, “There are certain individual police officers in respect of whom videos are available. There are police personnel putting lathis in the buttocks of women”. He said that there should be some immediate action against them without waiting for the outcome of the committee’s probe.

‘Send strong message to police’

Backing this, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for a petitioner, said, “A very strong message has to be sent to police people who behave in this fashion”. Referring to the reply filed by the police in response to the petitions, he said, “There is an admission that police were in plainclothes, there is an admission that action was taken…” but “There is complete silence about any administrative action being taken (against those personnel).”

He said, “Let them at least disclose what administrative action they have taken because once they have started violating women who are protesting with this kind of sexual and disgusting activity, I want some responsibility to be taken by individuals who are responsible for that chain of action.”

However, the CJI said, “If we start examining or giving opinion or direction, then probably we will be curtailing the role of the high-powered committee…Committee will deal with the issues one by one. There are issues which require immediate attention. There are other issues, for eg., laying down the guidelines, laying down the protocol for use of (force)…”.

The petitioners said they would submit a note with suggestions on what immediate directions are necessary.

The CJI said the court will also ask the authorities to hand over all digital and other materials which it had directed to be preserved to the committee.

‘Let protesters apologise’

Advocate Rizvan Ahmed, appearing for a petitioner who has opposed the withdrawal of cases, said the protesters were yet to express any remorse. He suggested that the cases should not be withdrawn unless they file affidavits expressing apology.

Ahmed said that under the law, there are only two categories of protests: lawful and unlawful. The July 20 Parliament march being unlawful, the participants cannot escape liability, he submitted.