The Delhi Police has defended its use of force against student protesters during the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest march, telling the Supreme Court that it resorted to a “graded” response only after the gathering ceased to remain peaceful, with sections of the crowd breaching multiple layers of barricades and attempting to move towards Parliament.
In a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, deputy commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma said that the allegation of excessive force was unsustainable given the scale of the gathering, claiming that about 5,000 police personnel were deployed to manage more than 30,000 protesters spread across nearly three kilometres. The police said that the ensuing confrontation left more than 240 police and uniformed personnel and around 200 protesters/public persons injured.
The affidavit has been filed in response to petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation into alleged police excesses and is intended to serve as a common response in four connected petitions. The matter is scheduled to come up before the Chief Justice of India-led bench on Tuesday.
The police said its personnel initially attempted to regulate and contain the gathering, but the situation deteriorated after protesters allegedly breached successive barricades and moved towards Parliament despite there being no permission for a Parliament march.
The affidavit contends that the gathering consequently assumed the character of an unlawful assembly and that the attempt to proceed towards Parliament was itself unlawful.
The police has also sought to counter the petitioners’ reliance on photographs, video clips and media and social-media reports, saying these materials were selective, incomplete and not independently verified and therefore presented only one side of the events without capturing the police’s efforts to control the situation.
Police: Lathi with nails was in protester’s hand
On the allegation that police personnel used lathis fitted with nails, the affidavit says that examination of the available videos showed one solitary instance of such an object, but claims it was in the hands of a protester and not a police officer.
The police further disputes the description of the object as a nail-studded police lathi, saying it was a stick carrying the National Flag. It maintains that lathis form part of permissible crowd-control equipment and were used only to contain groups of protesters who, according to the police, had begun attacking personnel.
The police has alleged that videos also show groups of protesters targeting individual police officers, pulling off their protective gear, dragging them and pushing them onto stone pavements.
It has claimed that 2,873 persons at the protest site had criminal cases registered against them, including allegations relating to murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rape and offences under the POCSO Act. The police says their antecedents will be examined by the Special Investigation Team constituted by the Delhi Police Commissioner.
At the same time, the police has told the Supreme Court that the question whether the force used was excessive can appropriately be examined by the committee proposed to be constituted by the Court, and that it would cooperate with such an exercise.
Police defends plainclothes personnel
The affidavit also addresses the presence of police personnel in plain clothes carrying lathis. It says these personnel were “spotters” drawn from the Special Branch, Special Cell, Crime Branch and local police who had strategically merged with the crowd because of the urgency of the situation.
The police says deployment of such personnel is neither illegal nor unusual and claims similar arrangements are used during large public gatherings, including Independence Day and Republic Day events.
According to the affidavit, the plainclothes personnel were deployed as part of crowd-control operations and not as an independent force against protesters.
Facial recognition was “proportionate policing measure”, says police
On the use of facial-recognition technology at the protest site, the Delhi Police has defended the deployment as a “proportionate policing measure”, while denying that it amounted to indiscriminate surveillance of protesters.
The police claims the software did not automatically create profiles of every person present at the protest and was not used for indiscriminate collection of personal information of peaceful protesters. According to its affidavit, the system was used to identify persons with previous criminal records for serious offences, while petty violations such as traffic challans were excluded.
The police has further claimed that no action is taken solely on the basis of a facial-recognition match. A field-level verification is undertaken to establish whether the person identified by the software was actually present at the protest site, it said.
Police cites protest restrictions
The affidavit also relies on the regulatory framework governing protests around Jantar Mantar and Central Vista. The Delhi Police’s Standing Order provides for prior police permission for demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, caps the gathering at 1,000 persons, and prohibits marches from the designated protest site except a limited symbolic march with prior permission.
The police therefore maintains that the protesters’ attempt to proceed towards Parliament was not a continuation of a permitted demonstration but a departure from the regulated protest framework.
The affidavit ultimately leaves the question of whether the force crossed the permissible limit to the Court’s proposed fact-finding mechanism, while insisting that the police response was necessary, proportionate and undertaken only after the situation had escalated.
The CJI-led bench is expected to consider the police’s response, including the allegations concerning use of force, plainclothes personnel and facial-recognition technology, later today.