Back
Issues Notice to , Over Alleged Brutality During Sansad Chalo
In a development that underscores the judiciary’s role as a watchdog over , the on Wednesday issued notice to the and the on a batch of (PILs) alleging that police used against student protesters during the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march on . A led by Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the authorities to file within four weeks and, crucially, ordered the —including , , , and orders authorising the use of force—pending further hearing on . The order signals that the Court is treating the matter not as a series of isolated incidents but as a systemic question concerning the limits of police power and the .
The Genesis of the Sansad Chalo Protest
The backdrop to the litigation lies in a satirical social media movement that snowballed into a full-fledged protest. The ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ emerged after the of India, during an earlier hearing, reportedly referred to unemployed youth attacking institutions under the guise of online activism as “cockroaches.” Though the later clarified that the remark targeted holders of fake degrees, the moniker stuck, and within days, accounts associated with the movement amassed millions of followers. The protest was directed against the alleged leak of the NEET-UG paper, a scandal that had already ignited widespread student anger.
On , demonstrators attempted to march from the designated protest site at Jantar Mantar towards Parliament despite barricades and . What followed, according to the petitioners, was a brutal police crackdown. has registered at least nine FIRs in connection with the march, citing stone-pelting, vandalism, and an assault on a Rapid Action Force personnel. However, the PILs paint a starkly different picture: one of unprovoked violence against unarmed students, doctors, lawyers, and ordinary citizens.
Petitioners Allege “Brutality of the Highest Order”
Appearing for one set of petitioners, told the Court that the protest had been wholly peaceful until police intervention. “The incident has shocked the conscience of the entire nation,” he submitted, arguing that the demonstrators were exercising their under . While the state can regulate assemblies, the force allegedly deployed was “disproportionate” and “unimaginable.”
Hariharan provided graphic details: “There are lathis with nails on them by which children are being beaten. Pellets and electric batons were used.” He contended that over 90 students sustained injuries, and that no ordering dispersal was made before force was used. Crucially, he alleged that “policemen were molesting women, beating them on private parts,” urging the Court to direct registration of FIRs against identifiable personnel and to constitute an , because the cannot be allowed to investigate itself.
, appearing in another , stated that his team had examined nearly 130 videos of the incident. He made a specific accusation: “Videos show Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman who was doing nothing. Let’s not be scared to name our thugs in uniform.” He argued that the authorities completely ignored the protocol laid down by the in the Ram Lila Maidan case, which mandates prior warnings and treats as a measure of last resort. Sankaranarayanan also noted that many individuals using force were neither in uniform nor wearing identification badges.
highlighted that the march had been publicly announced days in advance and that the gathering remained peaceful for nearly twenty days. He emphasised that requires officers to use “as little force, and do as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly.” The petitioners uniformly sought preservation of all electronic and documentary evidence, including police , and an .
ASG Raju Counters with Claims of Violence and Suppression
, representing the and , mounted a vigorous opposition. He argued that the PILs were based on “” and relied on social media videos whose authenticity is inherently suspect. “Social media is known to be tampered with,” Raju said, branding the petitions as “publicity-seeking” attempts to “hog the limelight.” He pointed to videos showing the crowd turning violent, pelting stones, and damaging police vehicles, and noted that police personnel had also suffered injuries.
On , the ASG insisted that persons claiming to have been assaulted should avail before a Magistrate under rather than invoke the High Court’s . He also submitted that under had been duly promulgated. Raju’s core contention was that the jurisdiction was being misused to adjudicate that could only be resolved through individual .
Court’s Observations and Directions
The , however, was not persuaded that the matter could be reduced to individual grievances. “Is it a case of some isolated incidents? Perhaps not. If it was an , as you say, there is law on how to deal with it. If these issues are raised in a , how can you say every individual should lodge an ?” the Court queried. Citing the ’s decision in , the Bench observed that remedies for violations of arising from can also be pursued under .
Without commenting on the veracity of the videos or the merits of the allegations, the Court ordered the preservation of “the relevant record in relation to the incident as mentioned in the writ petitions, including and , if any,” in line with issued by the and the . The direction effectively ensures that crucial evidence does not dissipate while the are prepared.
Legal Framework on Police Powers and Assembly Dispersal
The dispute places a spotlight on the delicate balance between the state’s duty to maintain and the . Section 149 BNSS (corresponding to the old ) empowers an officer to use force to disperse an , but it explicitly mandates and minimal injury. The ’s 2012 judgment in the Ram Lila Maidan case reinforced that and baton charges must be preceded by clear, loud proclamations, and that is the bedrock of any police response to assemblies. Moreover, the right to peacefully assemble is a core component of , and any restriction must not only be reasonable but also .
The petitioners have squarely invoked these principles, arguing that even if the assembly was eventually declared unlawful, the use of nail-studded lathis, electric batons, and alleged physical abuse of women cannot pass . The preservation order is therefore critical, as it may reveal whether force was excessive, whether proper warnings were issued, and whether the police adhered to their own guidelines.
Implications for Public Interest Litigation and Police Accountability
The Court’s handling of the question is significant. By refusing to relegate the matter to individual FIRs, the Bench recognised that of transcend the sum of their parts. This approach broadens the scope for PILs in cases where the police are accused of a , rather than isolated errors. It also sends a message that courts will not shy away from examining through the lens of , even when alternative remedies exist.
For the legal community, the outcome on will be closely watched. Should the Court find merit in the allegations and order an independent probe, it could set a precedent for of protest regulations in India. Conversely, if the ’s version is upheld, it may reinforce the authority’s wide discretion in managing assemblies, provided are honoured. In either case, the preservation order serves as a vital safeguard against the loss of evidence, a recurrent problem in such contentious matters.
Conclusion
The has taken the first step in what promises to be a contentious legal battle over the limits of police power and the scope of public interest litigation. By directing the and to respond within four weeks and mandating the safeguarding of all records, the Court has kept the door open for a comprehensive of the events. As the matter moves toward its next hearing, the legal fraternity will be watching to see whether the scales tip in favour of greater accountability for law enforcement or reaffirm the operational autonomy of the police in handling volatile protests.
