Back
Orders Preservation of Evidence in Jantar Mantar Police Action
In a significant judicial intervention, the has directed the and the to preserve all relevant records, including CCTV footage and videography, while issuing notice on a batch of alleging excessive force against student protesters at Jantar Mantar. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, hearing the urgent mentions on , rejected the state’s argument that aggrieved individuals must approach a magistrate, observing that the allegations of police excess were not “isolated incidents” but in nature. The bench’s order, and its pointed reference to the ’s ruling in , sets the stage for a deeper judicial examination of the boundaries between lawful crowd control and .
The Clash at Jantar Mantar: A Protest Turned Volatile
The petitions stem from the “Sansad Chalo” march organised by the , an online satirical collective, on . Students from across the country had gathered at the designated protest site, Jantar Mantar, demanding accountability for repeated examination paper leaks—including the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)—and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The protest, which had been underway for nearly three weeks, swelled dramatically on July 20 as the demonstrators prepared to march towards Parliament House.
The police intervened to prevent the march, and what followed, according to the petitioners, was a brutal crackdown. Multiple video recordings placed before the court allegedly showed lathi charges, the use of tear gas, and beatings with nail-fitted batons and electric batons. Over 90 protesters were reportedly injured. Senior women students were allegedly molested and struck on their private parts. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who staged a solidarity protest outside the Prime Minister’s residence, was also detained and suffered minor injuries.
Allege ‘Unimaginable’ Force and Constitutional Violations
, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the assembly had been peaceful and was exercising the to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly under . He contended that no under (or its successor, ) had been issued forbidding the gathering, and no prior warning was given before force was used. “The force used was disproportionate and unimaginable,” he submitted, describing the conduct as “akin to herding cattle.” He sought the of a Special Investigation Team or an independent inquiry, arguing that the could not investigate its own personnel.
, who had personally verified nearly 130 videos, drew the court’s attention to footage allegedly showing Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman protester who was “doing nothing.” He urged the bench to summon the officer directly, stating, “Let’s not be scared to name our thugs in uniform.” Sankaranarayanan also highlighted the presence of plainclothes personnel wielding non-standard weapons, in direct violation of the ’s guidelines in Ramlila Maidan Incident , In re (2012) 5 SCC 1, which mandate that tear gas be used only as a .
reinforced that the protest had remained peaceful for nearly twenty days and involved students, doctors, lawyers and persons from all walks of life. He cited , which obligates officers dispersing assemblies to “use as little force, and do as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly.”
State’s Defence: ‘Publicity Petitions’ and Lawful Force
, appearing for the and the Union Government, mounted a vigorous opposition. He claimed that the petitions were based on “suppression of facts” and unverified social media videos, which are “known to be tampered with.” He submitted that the demonstrations had turned violent, with the mob pelting stones, damaging police vehicles, and injuring personnel. Prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS had been promulgated, he said, and the police were compelled to act. He described the as “publicity petitions with ulterior motives” and argued that aggrieved individuals should pursue remedies before a magistrate under , rather than invoking the high court’s .
The bench, however, was not persuaded. “Is it a case of some isolated incidents? Perhaps not,” Chief Justice Upadhyaya observed. “If it was an , as you say, there is law on how to deal with it. If these issues are raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should lodge an FIR?” The court noted that the in Anita Thakur had explicitly held that remedies for state excesses are maintainable under before , even when individual remedies are available.
The Court’s Principled Stand: Wrongs Require Remedies
The division bench’s oral observations and its final directions reflect a judicial cognizance of the structural nature of the rights at stake. While refusing to express any opinion on the merits, the court directed the preservation of “the relevant record in relation to the incident as mentioned in the , including CCTV footage and videography, if any” in accordance with existing standard operating procedures. The Union and the police have been given four weeks to file their counter affidavits, and the matter is listed for further hearing on .
The court’s reasoning echoed the foundational principle that the , though not absolute, cannot be subjected to blanket or disproportionate measures. The bench’s reliance on Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. (2018), which dealt specifically with restrictions at Jantar Mantar, and Anita Thakur , where the awarded compensation for police excess after the situation was under control, indicates that the forthcoming hearings will likely centre on the of the force used—whether it exceeded what was necessary to address an actual threat, and whether it continued after the assembly was no longer unlawful.
The Surveillance PIL: A Separate Front on Privacy
While the main challenge police brutality, a parallel public interest petition filed by former president Aishe Ghosh has raised an equally significant constitutional question: the legality of continuous and intrusive surveillance of protesters. Ghosh’s petition alleges that the are conducting “indiscriminate” videography and photography of participants at Jantar Mantar, even during personal activities like eating and resting, in violation of the .
, appearing for the authorities, told the bench that videography is routine and “only for law and order and safety. There is no snooping. There is no surveillance.” He added that hundreds of protesters themselves make videos and reels daily. The court, however, has asked the police to inform whether they have formulated any guidelines for regulating protests as mandated by the . The petition in this matter seeks a declaration that such is constitutionally impermissible absent a “ to .”
Legal Precedents and the Principle
The legal landscape surrounding these petitions is well-trodden. Indian courts have consistently held that the under Article 19(1)(b) is a , subject to in the interest of under Article 19(3). However, the , as crystallised in Ramlila Maidan and Anita Thakur , demands that any restriction—and any force used to enforce it—must be commensurate with the actual threat posed. The “,” though rooted in international criminal law, finds a domestic echo in the idea that an order to use force does not immunise an officer from accountability for the manner of its execution.
The police are likely to rely on Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961) and Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1971) to argue that is permissible in urgent situations, and that the presence of stone-pelting justified the force. Yet the petitioners’ emphasis on the absence of prior warning, the use of nail-fitted lathis, and the targeting of women will test the boundaries of that defence. The ’s eventual determination may well refine the protocols for crowd dispersal in the capital and beyond.
Implications for Policing and Public Protest
The outcome of these carries significant ramifications for the in India. A robust judicial examination of police conduct could lead to binding guidelines on the use of force, mandatory videography of operations, and independent oversight mechanisms. Equally, the surveillance PIL, if successful, could recalibrate the balance between and privacy in public spaces, affirming that the right to assemble is not a waiver of the right to be free from unreasonable state monitoring.
With the already registering at least nine FIRs against protesters for , , and , the legal battle is now being fought on two fronts. The ’s orders to preserve evidence and its refusal to dismiss the petitions as mere publicity stunts signal that the judiciary is prepared to scrutinise the actions of the state as closely as it does those of the citizens. As the matter progresses towards the September hearing, the legal community will watch closely for a judgment that may once again define the contours of democratic dissent in India.
