A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court alleging excessive use of force by the Delhi Police during Monday’s Parliament march protest by Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and seeking a court-monitored independent inquiry, preservation of electronic evidence, identification of officers responsible, compensation for those allegedly injured and an investigation into the alleged role of unidentified persons seen alongside police personnel. The matter is likely to be taken up for hearing on Wednesday after the court refused an urgent listing on Tuesday.
The petition was mentioned before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, which was requested to hear the matter urgently.
Refusing the request, the Bench orally observed, “Don’t drag Court into all this. It will come up tomorrow.”
The PIL has been filed by protester and advocate Anshul Kumar, who has contended that the case raises issues of “profound constitutional significance” concerning the right of citizens to peacefully assemble and protest against governmental action under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
According to the petition, the demonstration was intended to peacefully express dissent on matters of public importance, but the Delhi Police allegedly resorted to indiscriminate use of force, including lathi-charge, physical assault, dragging of protesters, forcible dispersal, preventive detention and other coercive crowd-control measures.
The plea moved through advocates Inder Dev Singh and Yash Kumar that videos, photographs, eyewitness accounts and media reports available in the public domain prima facie depict alleged use of force against protesters, including women, elderly persons and members of the media. It also claims several protesters sustained injuries during the incident and says an independent inquiry is necessary to determine the exact number of injured persons, the nature of their injuries and the circumstances in which they were caused.
A key allegation in the petition is related to claims that certain individuals not wearing police uniforms appeared to be acting alongside police personnel during the operation. It argues that, if established, such participation by unauthorised private persons in coercive policing functions would amount to a serious abuse of State power and require an independent investigation to ascertain their identity, authority, affiliations and the extent of coordination with the police.
The petitioner has further submitted that substantial constitutional questions arise from the incident, including whether the use of force was authorised in accordance with law, who ordered it, whether it was necessary and proportionate, whether standard operating procedures for crowd control were followed, whether any unlawful detention or assault took place and whether electronic evidence, including CCTV footage, body-camera recordings, drone footage and wireless communication logs, has been preserved.
Contending that an internal departmental inquiry would not inspire public confidence because the conduct of the police itself is under challenge, the petition seeks the constitution of an independent court-monitored Fact-Finding Committee headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Delhi High Court.
It has sought directions to identify officers responsible for authorising and supervising the use of force, investigate allegations regarding unidentified persons, determine the number of casualties and injuries, recommend criminal and departmental action wherever warranted and assess compensation for victims whose fundamental rights may have been violated.
The plea has also sought immediate preservation of CCTV footage, body-camera recordings, drone footage, wireless communication logs, deployment records, duty rosters, videography and medical records, warning that any delay could result in crucial evidence being lost and frustrate an effective investigation.
It has further urged the court to direct authorities to disclose the complete chain of command and operational instructions issued for handling the protest and to strengthen guidelines governing policing of peaceful assemblies to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards.