New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to constitute a high-powered committee to examine allegations of excessive use of force by police during the student-led CJP protest and the subsequent march towards Parliament on July 20.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the proposed panel would include a retired Supreme Court judge, a former Chief Justice of a High Court, a former CBI Director, a former Director General of Police and other members. The court invited suggestions from the parties regarding additional members and said an order formally constituting the committee would be issued on Wednesday.
The panel is expected to scrutinise video recordings and CCTV footage of the clashes and the police response during the Parliament march. The court said the relevant footage would be made available to the committee to enable an independent assessment of what transpired on the day.
Complaints made by women protesters alleging molestation during the demonstration will also form part of the committee’s examination.
The development came as the Delhi Police maintained that its personnel had used force only after repeated warnings failed to prevent protesters from moving towards Parliament. In an affidavit filed before the court, the police said the protest had been disrupted by people with criminal backgrounds, claiming that more than 240 police personnel were injured during the unrest.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police, told the Bench that several individuals who joined the protest had serious criminal records. He said 92 people present at the site had been booked in more than 10 criminal cases, while 47 of them were described as “history-sheeters”.
Mehta suggested that cases against most protesters could be considered for quashing, with the exception of 2,873 individuals facing allegations involving serious offences such as murder, rape and abduction. He also maintained that the alleged involvement of anti-social elements who entered the demonstration needed to be separately investigated.
The issue of criminal cases against students was also closely examined by the Bench, which included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. The court highlighted the possible long-term consequences of criminal proceedings on young protesters and their education and careers.
Chief Justice Kant observed that students have constitutionally protected rights to express their views peacefully. He said the nature of any alleged criminality must also be assessed in the context and purpose of the gathering, distinguishing peaceful student protesters from habitual offenders.
The court’s observations came amid arguments over whether criminal cases registered against protesters should be withdrawn. Advocate Rizwan Ahmed, representing a petitioner opposing blanket withdrawal, argued that protesters should first submit affidavits expressing remorse. He contended that under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, protests are either lawful or unlawful and argued that participants in an unlawful march cannot automatically be absolved of liability.
Senior advocates Menaka Guruswamy, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, N Hariharan and Shadan Farasat, along with advocate Vrinda Grover, opposed the argument.
Sankaranarayanan referred to the Delhi Police’s own affidavit and claimed that it acknowledged the presence of plainclothes personnel who were allegedly not wearing identification tags while using force against protesters.
The Delhi Police, however, has defended its conduct and said it is prepared to cooperate fully with a court-appointed committee. Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma said in the affidavit that the police would provide all necessary material to any panel constituted by the Supreme Court to examine the use of force.
The proposed committee will therefore have the task of establishing what happened during the July 20 protest, examining allegations of police misconduct as well as the actions of protesters, and making recommendations to the Supreme Court.
The Bench’s emphasis on the future of the students has also brought the larger question of balancing public order with the constitutional right to peaceful protest into sharper focus. The committee’s findings are expected to play an important role in determining how the allegations and criminal cases arising from the demonstration are dealt with.
