‘Brutality of the largest measure possible’: Advocate in Delhi HC on police action during CJP protest march—Watch video

Delhi HC Hears Plea Over Police Conduct at CJP Protest March

Theindiapostdaily.com – Senior advocate N Hariharan appeared before the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, characterizing the law enforcement response as “brutality of the largest measure.” He contended that peaceful demonstrators faced unwarranted and excessive force during the Cockroach Janta Party’s ‘Chalo Sansad’ procession. The counsel requested both a high-level judicial inquiry and an investigation through an independent Special Investigation Team.

Background of the Protest

On July 20, thousands gathered for the CJP’s march toward Parliament. Participants called for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, citing alleged irregularities in examinations. The organization maintained that Delhi Police employed heavy-handed tactics to prevent demonstrators from reaching their destination.

Hariharan, alongside senior advocates Vikas Singh and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, represented the petitioners. He emphasized that both the Rapid Action Force and Delhi Police utilized disproportionate measures against participants, which included women and children. The counsel pointed out that demonstrators were exercising their fundamental right to peacefully demonstrate regarding NEET examination concerns. Authorities had prior knowledge that a march to Parliament was scheduled for July 20.

Allegations of Excessive Force

As President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, Hariharan submitted that while police possess the authority to regulate protests, they cannot target children with disproportionate measures. He stated that more than 90 unarmed student protesters sustained injuries. Furthermore, he accused certain officers of molestation and alleged that women demonstrators were assaulted.

“Something that followed was unimaginable. Brutality to the largest measure possible has been used. I am not for once saying that the state did not have the ability to regulate the movement, channelise the movement… Policemen can be seen beating ladies on their private parts. Women at the protest were molested. More than 90 protesters were injured, and the numbers keep growing. I am not saying police were not injured, but it needs to be inquired what happened on the ground.”

Hariharan requested the court to order the registration of an FIR against identifiable police personnel. He also argued that adequate warnings should have been issued before dispersing the crowd. The counsel urged authorities to place CCTV, drone, and body-camera footage on record, along with deployment orders and records authorizing lathi-charges and tear gas.

Co-Counsel Submissions

Vikas Singh, who also serves as president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, submitted that individuals in civil clothing joined police in attacking demonstrators. He alleged that lathis fitted with nails, pellets, and electric shock batons were deployed. Singh contended that children, students, lawyers, and citizens from various sections protested over genuine concerns about examination rigging. He described a police officer striking a protester on the head as impermissible.

Gopal Sankaranarayanan presented hundreds of publicly available videos demonstrating alleged police brutality. He claimed several personnel lacked name-tags and were not in uniform. He specifically pointed out Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a stationary woman.

“I can show the video right now. Let us not be scared to name our thugs in uniform when they deserve to be named. He should be summoned here and he should be asked to be accountable.”

Government’s Response

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police and the Centre, characterized the PILs as being “in the realm of guesswork.” He stated that individuals with grievances should approach appropriate courts with concrete facts to seek FIR registration. Raju claimed the petitions relied on social media posts and were not maintainable. He submitted that an unruly crowd turned violent, stone-pelting police and damaging vehicles. Prohibitory orders were already in force in the area. He further argued that there are political p