The Delhi High Court has issued notices to the Centre and the Delhi Police, seeking their response to petitions that allege police excesses during a protest organized by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) at Jantar Mantar. The court has directed the authorities to preserve all relevant records, including CCTV footage and videography, pertaining to the incident. This action comes after allegations surfaced that security forces used excessive force, including pellet guns and batons, against protesters. The High Court’s intervention highlights the seriousness of the claims and the need for a thorough investigation.
The petitions, filed as public interest litigations (PILs), contend that the police action was not limited to isolated incidents but represented a broader pattern of excessive force. A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia acknowledged the gravity of the allegations, noting that the claims were not merely about isolated acts. The court has given the respondents four weeks to file a counter-affidavit, with the petitioners having two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 11.
The allegations against the Delhi Police include the use of tear gas, lathi charges, and in some reports, the use of pellet guns, which are more commonly associated with situations in Jammu and Kashmir. One protester, identified as Shaikh Irshad Mansoori, has claimed to have sustained multiple pellet injuries during the protest. Medical records reportedly corroborate these claims, with pellets being removed from his body. Another protester, Junaid Malik, who was involved in distributing food at the protest site, has approached the Supreme Court alleging that the Delhi Police kidnapped him, questioned him about the source of funds for the food supply, and subsequently abandoned him near Dehradun. He also alleged harassment of his family members by the Uttar Pradesh Police.
Delhi Police, however, has largely denied these allegations, terming some of the claims as “completely false and misleading.” They have asserted that any protester seeking the registration of an FIR should approach the magistrate rather than invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, and have suggested that some of the petitions might be publicity-seeking. The police have stated that in cases of alleged assault, individuals should pursue private complaints. They also claim that while rubber bullets were used as a last resort, pellet guns were not deployed.
The controversy gained further traction with reports and social media posts detailing alleged police brutality. Some accounts claimed the use of nail-studded batons and the assault of women and children. Delhi Police have actively sought to debunk these claims, citing specific instances where they have refuted allegations made by individuals and social media handles, including those from CJP spokesperson Saurav Das and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair. The police have warned against the circulation of unverified content and indicated potential legal action against those spreading misinformation.
Despite the Delhi Police’s denials, the Delhi High Court’s decision to issue notices and order the preservation of evidence underscores the court’s commitment to examining the allegations thoroughly. The involvement of the High Court in seeking a detailed response from the Centre and the police, along with the directive to preserve all video and CCTV evidence, indicates a significant judicial scrutiny of the events that transpired during the CJP protest. The outcome of the court proceedings will be crucial in determining the veracity of the claims and ensuring accountability.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
