New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that no coercive action be taken against protestors involved in the recent student protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) in Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and various other States.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also ordered immediate release of minors detained by police across different States.
However, the Court clarified that this protection shall not extend to those with a criminal background.
The Court also said the allegations of excesses by the police prima facie made out a case of fair and independent probe. Thus, it proposed to constitute a high-powered committee to ensure a fair and independent probe to these incidents of violence.
However, the Court first granted the Union government and Delhi Police an opportunity to place their version on record. It said that other States, where the violence took place, may also place their version on record.
Accordingly, notice was issued to the chief secretaries of Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.
Meanwhile, the Court directed that all CCTV footage, drone recordings, wireless communications and other records in connection with such protests be preserved. It also said that the digital data of the protestors recorded by the police shall not brought in public domain.
“No personal data, details of protesters to be published,” the Court directed.
The Court also took note of allegations that pellet guns were used during the protest leading to injuries among students including one boy who allegedly lost his eyesight.
It also noted that rubber bullets, electric batons and lathis embedded with nails had also allegedly been used by the forces deployed to maintain the situation.
Further, the Court recorded in its order the allegation that police personnel in civilian dress were deployed during the protests.
It also recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta‘s submission that criminals had infiltrated the protests and caused injuries to police personnel.
Meanwhile, the Bench said the protocol for protests laid down in earlier decisions of the Court may need modification. It added that a mechanism needs to be activated when such protests or situations occur.
“These agitations in democracy are bound to be,” CJI Kant said.
CJI Kant said the incidents of excesses during the recent protests require a thorough and transparent probe. However, the Court also said that it cannot look into the allegations. Thus, it said, a high-powered committee was required for a probe into the incidents.
The matter will be heard next week.
Order in a nutshell
1. No coercive action against protestors other than those with criminal antecedents;
2. All States are directed to release children below 18 arrested during the protests;
3. Police shall ensure that digital, personal data of protesters is not brought in public domain;
4. All cctv, drone, body camera, wirelessss communication record pcr calls be preserved;
5. Notice issued to chief secretaries of Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, MP and UP.
Background
The Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking pan-India guidelines to ensure peaceful protests are allowed. The pleas were filed in light of the recent use of force by police on protestors at Jantar Mantar in Delhi and in Bihar.
Some petitions also sought action against protesters accused of assaulting police personnel during the demonstrations.
The protests had begun in June on a call by online collective Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) against repeated question paper leaks. They demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who has since resigned from the position.
The protests gained momentum after climate activist Sonam Wangchuk joined and started a hunger strike in solidarity. Wangchuk was later removed from the protest site and taken to a hospital by the Delhi police, citing his worsening health condition. He ended his 26-day hunger strike at Medanta Hospital late on July 23.
Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) resorted to baton charge, teargas shelling and even use of pellet guns to stop the protestors on the “Sansad Chalo” march to the Parliament on July 20.
Pradhan eventually tendered his resignation as minister on July 25, and the protests were called off.
Similar protests were witnessed in Bihar as well, where the police took similar action. A policeman was also seen using an AK-47 weapon against the protestors.
Police action against these protests have led to widespread discontent among those agitating and in support of such protests.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing some of the petitioners, said the responsibility needs to be fixed in the matter.
He also said that no prohibitory order had been issued against gathering around Jantar Mantar.
“They acted with license. We want responsibility to be placed up the ladder and unless that happens police will think they can get away with it,” the senior counsel said.
CJI Kant said such action can be taken once guidelines are laid down. Sankaranarayanan pressed for an independent probe under the supervision of a former CJI.
Sankaranarayanan also highlighted that some protestors, identified through facial-recognition technology, had received notices from police asking them to explain their presence at Jantar Mantar.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government and Delhi Police supported the demand for a probe by a neutral investigation agency.
“Having understood the petitions, there is one set of petitioners who allege that the students were subjected to brutal police action. If that is so, it cannot be taken lightly. The government also does not take such allegations lightly. Students undoubtedly have a right to protest peacefully. If anyone has violated the law, that person must be proceeded against and punished, subject to the satisfaction of this Court,” the SG said.
He also said that family members of policemen who sustained injuries in the protests were also before the Court.
“As a State, we also cannot do anything that would demoralise the police force. Ultimately, there may be one version, another version, and then the truth. It is the truth that must emerge before this Court,” Mehta said.
CJI Kant said it would have to be seen whether those who attacked police officials were actually students.
“One aspect would be whether the attacks on police officers and acts of violence against them were actually committed by students participating in the protest,” the Court said.
Mehta said some miscreants may have infiltrated the student movement.
“Some anti-social elements may have entered the protest. But I do not think the students themselves would have indulged in such acts,” he said.
When Justice Bagchi said there is always a danger of discrediting a peaceful protest, Mehta alleged that criminals too were found to have participated in the protest.
“Yes people with rape charges, NDPS charges were also present,” the SG said.
Mehta added that a committee may be constituted but sought time to place the relevant facts on record.
“I would only request that an opportunity be given to place the Government’s factual position on record before any such decision is taken,” he said.
