After Bihar, the Delhi Police has filed an affidavit earlier than the Supreme Court docket denying the usage of extreme power in opposition to pupil protestors.
In a counter-affidavit filed by Dy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma, the police defended its use of power, saying the protests had ceased to be peaceable after sections of the group allegedly breached a number of layers of barricades and tried to maneuver in the direction of Parliament. The affidavit was filed in response to the petitions in search of Court docket-monitored investigation into alleged police excesses and can be supposed as a standard reply in 4 linked petitions.
It states that the police used a graded power. About 5000 cops have been attempting to handle a crowd of over 30,000 individuals, unfold throughout 3 kms. As the group went utterly uncontrolled, battle ensued and each protestors in addition to police personnel have been injured. Greater than 240 personnel/uniformed officers and round 200 public individuals/protestors obtained accidents.
The affidavit avers that the allegation of extreme power can’t be sustained in view of the sheer variety of protestors current at completely different spots, which included anti-social components and historical past sheeters who had infiltrated the protest.
It’s additional highlighted that since there was no permission granted for the Parliament march, the gathering was an unlawful gathering and try to maneuver in the direction of the Parliament an unlawful act by an illegal meeting.
The police additionally claims that the petitions filed earlier than the courtroom depend on selective images, incomplete video clips, unverified media and social media stories, which haven’t been independently verified. These paint a one-sided image, with out reflecting lawful actions of the police officers.
On the allegation of use of lathis with nails, the police says that as per movies, there was a solitary incident involving a lathi with nails, however that too, was within the palms of a protestor, not the police. It’s states that it was not a lathi, however a stick which had the Nationwide Flag hooked up to it.
The affidavits states that lathis are an appropriate permissible gear and the officers have been solely making an attempt to include the crowds as teams of protestors began attacking them unprovoked.
All measures have been taken strictly in accordance with permissible modes of controlling violence, the affidavit states.
On use of officers in plain garments
It’s additional claimed that the movies of police officers with lathis in plain garments (Spotters) present a crowd management measure out of context. The affidavit mentions that as a result of urgency of the scenario, spotters from Particular Department, Particular Cell, Crime Department and Native Police strategically merged inside the group, which is neither unlawful nor uncommon. This tactic is infact adopted in public gatherings on Independence Day, Republic Day, and so on. as nicely.
The police claims that it was constrained to make use of power solely after the protestors breached the a number of layers of the barricade and began violence. It alleges that there are movies of enormous teams of protestors concentrating on lone police officers in a mob lynching trend and pulling off protecting gear of officers, dragging them, and pushing them on stone pavements.
It’s also knowledgeable that about 2873 individuals had felony fees in opposition to them, together with homicide, try to homicide, dacoity, rape, POCSO and so on. They are going to be investigated by the SIT constituted by Delhi Commissioner. The affidavit states that the usage of power by the police will be gone into by the Committee proposed to be setup by the courtroom and the Delhi police will cooperate with it.
On use of facial recognition software program
Notably, on deployment of facial recognition software program at protest website, the police says that the identical was a proportionate policing measure. The software program, in response to the affidavit, doesn’t routinely seize profile of each particular person current on the protest website, neither is it deployed for indiscriminate surveillance or assortment of non-public data of peaceable protestors until he has a earlier felony report.
The police states that no motion is taken solely on foundation of facial recognition. A discipline verification can be carried out to ensure that the individual in query was current at website or not. Additional, the software program solely captures individuals who’ve a previous felony report for severe offenses, not petty offenses like visitors challans.
Case :Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 280/2026
