‘Brutality of the highest possible degree’: Advocate in Delhi HC on police action during CJP protest march – Play video | Today’s news

Terming the police action as “brutality of the utmost measure”, senior advocate N Hariharan on Wednesday alleged that disproportionate and unjustified force was used against peaceful protesters during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Chalo Sansad’ march and sought a high-level judicial inquiry along with an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT), according to PTI.

Thousands of people took part in the CJP’s ‘Chalo Sansad’ march on July 20, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged examination irregularities. The CJP alleged that the Delhi Police used excessive force to stop the protesters from marching towards Parliament.

Hariharan, who appeared for the petitioner along with senior advocates Vikas Singh and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, alleged that the Delhi Police and the Rapid Response Force (RAF) used disproportionate force against the protesters, including women and children.

Quick answers to key questions

•5 QUESTIONS

Senior advocate N. Hariharan described the police action as “brutality of the highest order” and demanded a judicial inquiry along with an independent probe by a special investigation team (SIT).

The CJP alleges that the Delhi Police used disproportionate force against peaceful protesters, including women and children, leading to more than 90 reported injuries among the protesters.

The Delhi Police alleged that the crowd had turned unruly and resorted to stone pelting, resulting in injuries to police personnel, and claimed bans were in place at the protest site.

While Additional Solicitor General SV Raju suggested that individuals with complaints file FIRs themselves, the Delhi High Court noted that public law provides avenues for relief in cases of alleged police brutality.

Attorneys presented numerous publicly available videos showing alleged police brutality, including claims that officers were not in uniform and used excessive force against unarmed protesters, including children.

The lawyer said the protesters were exercising their fundamental right to peacefully protest against alleged irregularities in the NEET examination, noting that the authorities already knew that a march to Parliament was planned for July 20.

Read also | CJP Protest LIVE: No crackdown planned at Jantar Mantar tonight, says police

Hariharan, who is also the president of the Delhi Bar Association (DHCBA), argued that while the police have the power to “regulate” the protest, they “cannot unleash it on children” by using excessive force.

A senior advocate claimed that the protesters were unarmed students and that more than 90 of them were injured during the police action. He further alleged that police personnel assaulted women protesters and accused some policemen of harassment.

Read also | “We have to create a culture where… merit wins” – Sachin Tendulkar on CJP protests

Hariharan urged the court to order the registration of an FIR against police personnel who could be identified.

“Something that followed was unimaginable. Brutality was used to the maximum extent possible. I’m not saying that the state didn’t have the ability to regulate the movement, to direct the movement… Policemen can be seen beating ladies in their private lots. Women in protest were harassed. There were more than 90 protesters and the number is still growing. I’m not saying that the police needed to be informed on the spot, the police were not injured, bench, according to NDTV.

Hariharan further argued that the police should have given adequate warning before resorting to the use of force to disperse the crowd.

He urged the court to direct the police to obtain CCTV, drone and body camera footage related to the incident, along with deployment orders and records authorizing the use of lathi-charge and tear gas.

Read also | Will take action if Supreme Court Metro station not opened by lunch, says CJI

Singh said individuals in civilian clothes joined police personnel in attacking the protesters and alleged that lathis fitted with nails, balls and even batons capable of delivering electric shocks were used during the police action.

Singh, who is also the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), argued that children, students, lawyers and people from various sections of society protested against their “genuine” concerns regarding the alleged rigging of the investigation. He further claimed that the police officer’s hit on the protester’s head was “unacceptable”.

Sankaranarayanan told the court that hundreds of publicly available videos show alleged police brutality and claimed that several staff had neither name tags nor uniforms.

He claimed, “Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba is seen slapping a woman who is not doing anything. She is not moving.”

Sankaranarayanan further argued, “I can show the video right now. We are not afraid to name our thugs in uniform when they deserve it. He should be summoned and asked to be held accountable.”

What did the ASG say?

Appearing for the Delhi Police and the Centre, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the PILs were “in the realm of conjecture” and said that if anyone has a complaint, they should approach the appropriate court with “specific facts” and seek registration of an FIR.

Raju argued that the petitions were based on social media posts and were not maintainable before the court.

A senior law officer said the unruly mob turned violent and resorted to stone pelting resulting in injuries to police personnel and damage to police vehicles. He also informed the court that prohibition orders are already in force in the area.

He further argued: “There are political parties that try to exploit the facts. The so-called peaceful agitation has not remained a peaceful agitation.”

Raju also claimed, “These are publicity petitions. The persons who were injured or allegedly beaten up did not file any complaint.”

What did the bench say

The court, however, observed that the allegations made in the PIL did not pertain to an “isolated incident” and directed the lawyer to file a reply.

Chief Justice Upadhyaya observed, “If these issues are raised in the PIL, how can you say that every individual should file an FIR? Had it been an isolated incident, the situation could have been different.”

The bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the PIL, adding that in cases of alleged police brutality, the affected person can seek relief under “public law”.