New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, Wednesday, issued notices on three petitions seeking judicial inquiry into the alleged brutality displayed by the Delhi Police on 20 July during the Cockroach Janta Party’s Sansad Chalo March, directing that the CCTV footage and videos mentioned in the petitions be preserved.
The Bench of Chief Justice D. K. Upadhayaya and Justice Tejas Karia—hearing the three petitions argued by senior advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh, senior advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan and Delhi HC Bar Association President and senior advocate N. Hariharan—posted the matter for hearing on 11 September.
Significantly, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, representing the government and the Delhi Police, argued that some policemen were injured and police vehicles were seriously damaged. Plus, he told the court, none of those who were allegedly beaten up approached the court, and he asked them to come forward.
“This is not the petitioners’ personal knowledge but based on some social media videos. Therefore, all these petitions are in the realm of guesswork and lack concrete facts,” he said. Thus, he asked the court to direct the petitioners to move the magistrate’s court and let proceedings continue. He also relied on social media to show the promulgation of BNS 163 (erstwhile 144 Cr.P.C), which prohibits the gathering of four or more people.
The Court, then posed questions to ASG Raju about this not being an isolated incident and asked him to reply to the petitions in four weeks.
A fourth plea was filed by an advocate relating on an incident on 18 July, when Sonam Wangchuk was taken to Safdarjung hospital from the Jantar Mantar protest site. The court refused to entertain it, calling it a “solitary event” and observing that Wangchuk’s wife never said anything in her legal recourse. Yet, if the petitioner wanted, he could lodge an FIR, the court said.
Petitioner’s submissions and prayers
DHCBA President N. Hariharan started by telling the court that the peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar was exercising constitutional freedoms under Articles 19 and 21.
His main submission was that even though the state had the “ability to regulate/channelise the movement”, they did not do so. He submitted a pen drive with a series of videos purportedly showing police brutality—via pellets, electric currents and lathis.
He added that an independent agency should oversee this as the Delhi Police cannot probe the issue. He asked for a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to be formed to probe the alleged brutality. He also sought the preservation of all circulars, deployment orders, directions on which the police acted, CCTV and all orders for use of tear gas, baton, etc.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the videos revealed how a large number of people not wearing uniform and name tags were present and who must be identified. He also mentioned that Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba was seen slapping a woman, and said (such policemen) were “thugs in uniform” and should be summoned.
He drew the court’s attention to the Ramlila Maidan judgment in 2012, where SC gave directions to Delhi Police Commissioner to set protocols on dealing with protests. The judgment stated that tear gas would not be used.
He also told the court about videos showing tear gas being fired at people carrying children and lathis with nails. He also mentioned that there was a video of a truck full of stones near the protest site. Apart from an SIT and FIR, we need to have a judicial inquiry as well, Gopal Sankarnarayan said.
SCBA president and senior advocate Vikas Singh also told the court that the plan for the 20 July protest and the march to Parliament was well known. He also told the court that no circular under BNS 163 (erstwhile 144 Cr.P.C) was communicated, he told the court. No basic announcements were made and the magistrate did not come to the site.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)