The Delhi High Court has demanded responses from the Delhi Police and Union Government regarding allegations of excessive force used against students during a protest by the Cockroach Janta Party.
New Delhi, India Jul 22, 2026 ALN: Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Delhi Police and the Union Government regarding a series of public interest litigations (PILs) that allege the excessive use of force against students during the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) "Sansad Chalo" march, which took place on July 20, 2023. This march was organized in response to allegations surrounding the leak of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) paper, a crucial examination for aspiring medical students in India.
The NEET exam has long been a focal point of contention among students and educational institutions due to its high stakes and the implications it has for students' futures. The allegations of a paper leak stirred significant unrest among students, prompting the CJP to organize the march in an attempt to voice their concerns and demand accountability from the authorities. The march's escalation into a confrontation with law enforcement has raised serious questions about police conduct and the rights of protesters in India.
According to reports from legal news platforms, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the authorities involved to file their counter affidavits within a period of four weeks. Additionally, the Court ordered that all relevant records related to the incident be preserved, including CCTV footage and videography, which could provide crucial insights into the events that transpired during the protest. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on September 11, 2023.
Court questions police stand
During the hearing, the bench expressed skepticism regarding the Delhi Police's stance that individual victims should pursue separate legal remedies rather than consolidating their grievances into a single PIL. The Court posed pointed questions, asking, "Is it a case of some isolated incidents? Perhaps not. If it was an unlawful assembly, as you say, there is law on how to deal with it. If these issues are raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should lodge an FIR?" This line of questioning indicates the Court's recognition of the potential systemic issues at play, rather than merely individual grievances.
The High Court clarified that it was not making any judgments regarding the truthfulness of the allegations or the authenticity of the videos cited by the petitioners. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the bench noted that alleged violations of fundamental rights due to police actions could indeed be examined under public law, underscoring the judiciary's role in safeguarding citizens' rights against potential state overreach.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court emphasized the importance of preserving "the relevant record in relation to the incident as mentioned in the writ petitions, including CCTV footage and videography, if any," in line with the standard operating procedures issued by both the Delhi Police and the Union Government.
Petitioners allege excessive force
As reported by legal news sources, the petitioners have alleged that the protest on July 20 began in a peaceful manner but escalated dramatically when police resorted to what they described as disproportionate force. Senior advocates representing the petitioners claimed that students were subjected to beatings with lathis (batons), and that tear gas and other crowd control measures were employed without adhering to due procedure. They have called for an independent investigation into the incident to ensure accountability and transparency.
One of the petitioners has made particularly grave accusations, stating, "There are policemen who were molesting women, beating them on private parts. It is so ghastly... At least identifiable policemen, against them FIRs should be there. It is all in videos. An enquiry be made into the entire incident." This reflects the broader concerns regarding the treatment of women in protests and the need for law enforcement to adhere to protocols that respect individual rights and dignity.
Another petitioner pointed to verified videos that allegedly show senior police officers physically assaulting protesters, arguing that the authorities failed to follow the Supreme Court's established guidelines for dispersing crowds peacefully and respectfully. This highlights the ongoing debate about the appropriate use of force by law enforcement during public demonstrations, particularly in a democratic society where the right to protest is constitutionally protected.
Centre, Delhi Police oppose PILs
In response to the petitions, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued against the claims made by the petitioners, contending that the PILs were based on unverified social media videos and that crucial material facts had been suppressed. Raju maintained that the protest had devolved into violence, resulting in injuries to police personnel and damage to government property. He stated, "The petition, though it looks very attractive at first blush, is not so. It is based on suppression of facts and social media recordings. Social media is known to be tampered with. These are all publicity petitions with ulterior motives." This defense underscores the tension between state authorities and citizens exercising their right to protest, particularly in a politically charged environment.
Furthermore, Raju contended that individuals claiming to have been assaulted should seek appropriate legal remedies rather than invoking the court's public interest jurisdiction. This raises important questions about the accessibility of justice for individuals who may feel intimidated or powerless to pursue legal action against state actors.
According to the Delhi Police, nine FIRs have been filed in connection with the alleged violence, stone-pelting, and vandalism that occurred during the march. The charges include rioting, assaulting public servants, destroying public property, and attempting to murder a member of the Rapid Action Force (RAF). This response from the police illustrates the complexity of the situation, where both protesters and law enforcement have alleged wrongdoing against each other.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had declined to grant urgent listing of a similar plea, indicating a cautious approach to the matter. The Court observed, "Don't drag Court into all this. It will come up tomorrow," suggesting that the judiciary is mindful of the need to balance the urgency of the situation with the principles of due process. Similarly, the Supreme Court had also refused to grant urgent listing of a related plea, remarking, "Don't waste our time, and don't waste your time," which reflects the judiciary's stance on the necessity of substantiating claims before the court can intervene.
The ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the CJP protest raise significant questions about the nature of civil liberties in India, particularly the right to assemble peacefully and express dissent. The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between citizens and law enforcement, as well as for the broader discourse on human rights and accountability in the context of state power. As the judiciary navigates these complex issues, it remains essential for all parties involved to adhere to principles of justice, transparency, and respect for constitutional rights.
To learn more about the latest developments in Crime & Law, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
