The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 22, 2026) asked the Union government and the Delhi Police to respond to a batch of public interest petitions alleging that the police used excessive force against students and other protesters during the Parliament march on March 20. The court also directed authorities to preserve all relevant records, including CCTV footage and videography, related to the protest march.
A Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the allegations raised in the petitions could not be brushed aside as “isolated incidents”, and ordered that all relevant material be preserved in accordance with the standard operating procedures (SOPs) of the Delhi Police.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju alleged that the agitation had turned violent, with the protesters throwing stones and injuring police personnel. Lawyers representing the petitioners, however, said the police action was unwarranted and brutal, warning that the courts must step in to hold the police accountable.
Also Read | Thousands brave rain and regroup at CJP protest site, day after police crackdown
Appearing for one of the petitioners, senior advocate N. Hariharan alleged that the protesters were subjected to “brutality to the largest extent” by the State’s machinery. “There are videos of several people in civil clothes carrying lathis, lathis with nails, electric batons, and pellet guns. There is not a whisper that anybody in the march was violent,” Mr. Hariharan submitted.
He argued that even if prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (formerly Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) had been imposed, the police were required to follow established procedures before resorting to force.
“If the crowd turns unmanageable or violent, there is a manner to deal with it. There was no whistle blown warning that force would be used. The force has to be proportionate to the situation,” he said.
Mr. Hariharan further alleged that some policemen could be seen molesting women. “There are policemen molesting women, using baton... It is so ghastly,” he said, seeking the registration of FIRs against identifiable officers, and a high-level inquiry into the incident. According to him, more than 90 people had suffered injuries, with the number continuing to rise.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing in one of the PILs, alleged that a large number of policemen without nameplates were deployed and used batons not authorised for use by the Delhi Police. He referred to videos allegedly showing lathis fitted with nails and claimed that Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba was seen slapping a woman standing on the sidelines of the protest.
Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted that despite the Supreme Court’s directions in the Ramlila Maidan case (2012) to frame standing orders governing police action during protests, no such SOP had been implemented. “Tear gas, which should be the last resort, was used against students and even mothers carrying children,” he said.
Warning against unchecked police action, Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted, “If constitutional courts do not intervene, it would amount to giving the police a licence to get away with anything because they have the sanction of their political masters.”
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing petitioners, submitted that the students had been protesting for nearly 20 days over alleged irregularities in the NEET examination before deciding to march to Parliament.
Also Read | Pawar, Kejriwal, other Opposition leaders visit Jantar Mantar after crackdown; back CJP protest
“The assembly comprised students, doctors, paramedical staff, and others with grievances regarding NEET. It was peaceful and not unlawful. Even if it was unlawful, there is a prescribed method to deal with it,” Mr. Singh argued.
Referring to recurring allegations of paper leaks in public examinations, Mr. Singh submitted that public anger over the examination system had driven people to the protest.
Opposing the petitions, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju submitted that the demonstration had ceased to remain peaceful.
“There are videos showing policemen being injured, damage to police vehicles, and the crowd throwing stones. When violence occurs, the police has to act accordingly,” he argued.
The ASG contended that prohibitory orders under Section 163 had been promulgated and were widely publicised, including through social media. He described the petitions as “publicity-seeking” and argued that individuals alleging assault should pursue remedies before the jurisdictional magistrates if they believed cognisable offences had been committed.
The Bench, however, expressed reservations about treating the allegations as individual instances. “Is it a case of some isolated individual incidents? Perhaps not,” the court observed.
“If these issues are being raised in a PIL, how can you [Mr. Raju] say that every individual should go and lodge an FIR?” the Bench remarked.
Recording that the petitioners had already approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) but had received no response, the Bench directed the Centre to submit its response.
The matter will next be heard on September 11.
Published - July 22, 2026 04:46 pm IST