The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the “most powerful force” available to society and law enforcement authorities to prevent violence during protests is to listen to young people and counsel them, cautioning that any “aggressive action in the name of the mighty State” could aggravate the situation and trigger further unrest.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations while agreeing to hear a petition seeking action against the organisers of the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” march in the national capital, during which violence had broken out. The court directed that the plea be tagged with the batch of petitions already pending before it concerning the student protests and the alleged police excesses during the demonstrations.
ALSO READ | Supreme Court opens door for withdrawal of FIRs against student protestors
Plea sought action against organisers, alleged rioters
The fresh petition has been filed by former Indian Air Force officer Manish Solanki, who has sought action and accountability against the organisers and alleged rioters involved in the July 20 march. The plea also urged the court to restrain the Union government and states from withdrawing rioting cases arising out of the recent student protests solely on the basis of any political understanding and seeks directions to identify persons who made derogatory remarks against police or security personnel and require them to perform community service.
During the hearing, advocate Rizwan Ahmad, appearing for the petitioner, argued that while questions were being raised about the accountability of governments and police, the organisers of the protest had escaped scrutiny.
“It has been 15 days, and after having created mayhem in a sensitive area, they are just moving from one television channel to another, delivering provocative speeches and still fanning the fire. The government could be on the back foot now, but society and this court cannot be,” Ahmad submitted.
The bench indicated that the issues raised would be examined along with the larger batch of pending matters. “Better we hear this with the batch of other matters where several related issues are pending. We are open to all kinds of suggestions, viewpoints and dissenting views,” it observed.
Restrained approach needed to handle young protesters: SC
When Ahmad pressed for issuance of notice, the court underlined that the approach to handling young protesters should be one of restraint rather than confrontation.
“Youngsters are required to be pacified, counselled, and any aggressive action in the name of the ‘mighty State’ can unnecessarily aggravate the situation and precipitate further violence. That needs to be avoided,” the bench remarked.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that stone-throwers and those indulging in violence could not be allowed to escape accountability merely because governments were inclined to withdraw criminal cases. “Ours is a petition arguing for community service. Stone pelters cannot be let off. There was stone pelting yesterday in Rajasthan, and this can happen anywhere else. This will become a dangerous precedent. The government in the NCT of Delhi is bending backwards, and this can become a dangerous trend in other states too,” Ahmad argued.
He submitted that the July 20 march had been held without permission and that several conditions governing the event had allegedly been violated. “There was no permission for the July 20 march. Twenty-two conditions were violated by the organisers, which was not even a registered organisation. How could they be allowed to march to Parliament or enter the temple of democracy? Who knew someone among them did not have a country-made pistol or a bomb?” he submitted.
Responding to these concerns, the bench stressed that democratic protests should begin peacefully and that the authorities too must exercise restraint if isolated incidents occur.
“What is important is that democratic movements start peacefully. If some incidents take place, forces also need to exercise a lot of restraint so that the situation does not go out of hand. Wherever such incidents take place, we need to tread carefully so that youngsters do not indulge in violence,” it emphasised.
Listening to youth is ‘most powerful force’: SC bench
“The better way is to counsel them. The most powerful force is listening…listen to them and understand why they are there,” it added.
The court also said it would leave operational decisions to law enforcement agencies while examining the broader legal issues raised before it.
“Let us leave it to the wisdom of the law enforcement agencies. They know better how to handle situations on the ground. We are open to hearing all sides and all kinds of opinions. Let the government also respond to this,” said the bench.
The matter has now been tagged with the batch of petitions arising out of the nationwide protests over the NEET examination controversy.
The proceedings are a continuation of the court’s ongoing examination of the fallout from the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest. On Monday, the same bench had clarified that its July 28 interim order did not prevent governments from closing or withdrawing criminal cases against eligible student protesters in accordance with law, and emphasised that only persons with “grave and heinous” criminal antecedents would remain outside the protection granted by the court.
The bench had also expressed its willingness to facilitate the withdrawal of criminal cases against eligible students so that FIRs did not “keep hanging on the heads of the students”, while making it clear that the benefit would not extend to those accused of serious offences such as murder, rape or kidnapping.
At the same hearing, the court disclosed that it was considering constituting a special investigation team to examine cases not withdrawn or closed and a separate committee headed by a former judge to inquire into issues arising from the protests. It also indicated that it intended to frame comprehensive guidelines on the use of pellet guns by police during crowd-control operations while stressing that neither police excesses nor violence by protesters should escape scrutiny.
