The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 22 July issued notices to the Centre and Delhi Police on a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) alleging excessive use of force during the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)-led 'Sansad Chalo' march over the alleged NEET paper leak. The court simultaneously directed authorities to preserve all CCTV footage, videography and other relevant records connected with the 20 July incident.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the allegations did not pertain to isolated incidents for which individual victims could simply be directed to file separate complaints — and sought counter affidavits from the respondents within four weeks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 11 September.

What the Petitioners Alleged

Senior advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that students were peacefully exercising constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21 when police allegedly resorted to what he described as 'brutality of the highest order'. He claimed that more than 90 students suffered injuries and alleged that no proper warning or proclamation was issued before force was deployed.

'There are lathis with nails on them by which children are being beaten. Pellets and electric batons were used. This is the manner in which peaceful protests will be treated?' Hariharan argued before the Bench. He further alleged that some women protesters were molested by policemen and urged the court to direct registration of FIRs against identifiable personnel and order an independent investigation.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing in a separate PIL, submitted that after examining over 130 videos, his team found instances of excessive force, personnel without name tags and allegedly unauthorised weapons. He referred to a video purportedly showing Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba slapping a woman protester without provocation, and argued that authorities had failed to follow the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in the Ram Lila Maidan case governing dispersal of assemblies.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh argued that the march to Parliament had been publicly announced in advance and remained peaceful until the police intervened. He submitted that nothing on record indicated the gathering had become an unlawful assembly and stressed that body cameras of security personnel should be immediately seized. 'Hitting on the head can never be permitted under the law,' Singh told the Bench.

The Government's Position

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, opposed the petitions, contending they were based on social media videos and suppression of material facts. Raju submitted that prohibitory orders had been in force, the crowd had turned violent, police personnel were injured, vehicles were damaged and videos showed stone-pelting by some in the crowd.

'Though the petition looks impressive at the first blush, it is not so. These petitions are only publicity-seeking petitions so that they can get limelight. Persons allegedly beaten up have not come forward,' the ASG argued, adding that those alleging assault could seek statutory remedies before a Magistrate rather than invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

How the Court Responded

The CJ Upadhyaya-led Bench pushed back on the government's suggestion that each affected individual should file a separate complaint. 'Was this an isolated incident? Perhaps no. If this was an unlawful assembly, there is a procedure to deal with it. If these issues are being raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should go and lodge an FIR?' the court observed, while clarifying it was not expressing any opinion on the authenticity of the videos or the merits of the allegations at this stage.

The Bench directed preservation of 'the relevant record in relation to the incident as mentioned in the writ petitions, including the CCTV footage, videography, if any', in accordance with standard operating procedures issued by the police. Petitioners have been granted two weeks after the government's counter affidavit to file rejoinders.

Other Related Proceedings

On the same day, the Delhi High Court dismissed a separate PIL seeking a declaration that activist Sonam Wangchuk's removal from Jantar Mantar on 18 July during his hunger strike was illegal. The court noted that Wangchuk's wife had already approached the High Court in separate proceedings relating to his medical treatment and transfer to Medanta Hospital, and that the petitioner was free to seek remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to pursue FIR registration.

Separately, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declined an urgent listing of a petition challenging the alleged police action against student protesters. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant told the petitioner's counsel: 'Please don't waste our time and don't waste yours. Your time is more valuable than ours.' When the counsel cited videos allegedly showing police brutality, the CJI declined the request, stating the court was not in a position to accommodate an urgent hearing.

Background: The Sansad Chalo March

The PILs stem from police action during the CJP-led 'Sansad Chalo' march, in which students and other protesters attempted to walk from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament on 20 July to demand accountability over the alleged NEET paper leak. Delhi Police had erected barricades and imposed restrictions to prevent the march from proceeding beyond the designated protest site. Following the protest, multiple FIRs were registered across central Delhi — four at Parliament Street Police Station, three at Connaught Place Police Station, and one each at Mandir Marg, Barakhamba Road and Kartavya Path police stations.

The next hearing is scheduled for 11 September, by which time the Centre and Delhi Police must file their counter affidavits.