The Delhi HC has sought responses from the Centre and Delhi Police on PILs alleging excessive force during the NEET protest ‘Sansad Chalo’ march, while directing authorities to preserve CCTV footage, videography and all relevant records pending further hearing.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Centre and the Delhi Police on a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) alleging excessive use of force against students and protesters during the recent CJP-led ‘Sansad Chalo’ march over the alleged NEET paper leak. At the same time, the court directed authorities to preserve CCTV footage, videography and all other relevant records connected with the incident until further proceedings.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notices to the Centre and the Delhi Police, directing them to file their responses within four weeks. The Bench observed that the allegations raised in the petitions could not be treated as isolated incidents requiring individual victims to file separate complaints and instead warranted judicial consideration through public interest litigation.
As an interim measure, the Bench instructed authorities to preserve all available evidence related to the July 20 protest, including CCTV footage, videography, electronic records and any other material maintained in accordance with the police’s standard operating procedures. The court clarified that preserving evidence was necessary while it examined the issues raised by the petitioners.
During the hearing, senior advocate N. Hariharan, representing one of the petitioners, argued that the students participating in the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march were peacefully exercising their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. He alleged that the police resorted to excessive and disproportionate force despite the demonstration being peaceful.
Hariharan claimed that police personnel used batons fitted with nails, pellets and electric batons against protesters. According to him, more than 90 students suffered injuries during the police action. He further alleged that authorities failed to issue proper warnings or make the required proclamations before dispersing the gathering.
The senior advocate also made serious allegations regarding the treatment of women protesters. He claimed that some women participants were molested by police personnel and sought directions from the High Court for registration of FIRs against officers who could be identified through available video evidence. In addition, he requested preservation of PCR logs, CCTV footage, police orders authorising the use of force and other electronic records.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing in another PIL, informed the court that his legal team had examined more than 130 videos related to the protest. He alleged that the videos indicated instances of excessive force, police personnel without visible name tags and the use of weapons that were allegedly not authorised for crowd control.
He also referred to a video allegedly showing Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman protester without provocation. Sankaranarayanan argued that the police had failed to follow safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in the Ram Lila Maidan judgment governing the dispersal of public assemblies. He urged the High Court to direct registration of FIRs against the concerned officials, initiate departmental proceedings and order an independent judicial inquiry into the incident.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh also supported the petitions, submitting that the protest march towards Parliament had been announced publicly in advance and remained peaceful until police intervention. He argued that there was no material to suggest that the gathering had become an unlawful assembly.
Singh stressed that striking protesters on the head could never be justified under the law and urged the court to ensure immediate seizure and preservation of body camera recordings of security personnel deployed during the protest. According to him, the case involved serious allegations affecting students and their family members who had assembled to protest peacefully.
Appearing for the Centre and the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the petitions. He argued that the PILs relied heavily on social media videos while allegedly suppressing important facts. According to the Centre’s law officer, prohibitory orders had already been imposed in the area, the crowd had turned violent, police personnel sustained injuries and government vehicles were damaged during the incident.
Raju further contended that available videos also showed incidents of stone-pelting and maintained that individuals alleging assault could pursue statutory remedies before the Magistrate instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. He described the petitions as publicity-oriented and argued that they did not warrant issuance of notice.
However, the Division Bench questioned the argument that every affected individual should be compelled to file separate complaints. The court observed that if the allegations related to a larger incident involving police action during a public protest, they could not simply be dismissed as isolated grievances.
The Bench remarked that if the assembly had indeed become unlawful, established legal procedures existed for dealing with such situations. It noted that the issues raised in the PILs required judicial examination rather than asking every alleged victim to independently approach the authorities with separate complaints.
The High Court made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the authenticity of the videos placed before it or on the merits of the allegations at this stage. Instead, it confined itself to issuing notices, directing preservation of evidence and calling for detailed responses from the respondents.
The respondents have been granted four weeks to file their counter affidavits, while the petitioners will have two additional weeks thereafter to submit rejoinders. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 11.
The petitions arise from police action during the July 20 CJP-led ‘Sansad Chalo’ march, in which students and other protesters attempted to march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament to protest the alleged NEET paper leak. Delhi Police had erected barricades and imposed restrictions to prevent the demonstrators from proceeding beyond the designated protest site.
| Also Read: Delhi Police Calls Jantar Mantar Videos False and Misleading |
Following the protest, multiple FIRs were registered across central Delhi. Police registered four cases at Parliament Street Police Station, three at Connaught Place Police Station and one case each at Mandir Marg, Barakhamba Road and Kartavya Path police stations in connection with the demonstration and related incidents.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declined an urgent listing of a separate petition challenging the alleged police action against student protesters. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refused the oral request for immediate listing, stating that the Court was not inclined to consider the matter urgently on the basis of videos placed before it. The petition seeking urgent intervention was consequently not listed for immediate hearing.
| Also Read: Assam Congress Demands Dharmendra Pradhan’s Resignation Over NEET Row |
The Delhi High Court proceedings will now continue after the Centre and Delhi Police submit their responses, with the preservation of CCTV footage and other evidence expected to play a significant role in the court’s examination of the allegations surrounding the NEET protest and the police response.
