A group of retired civil servants has denounced the police's use of excessive force against student protesters in Delhi, demanding an independent inquiry and immediate action against responsible officers.
New Delhi, India Jul 25, 2026 ALN: The illegal and disproportionate use of force by security personnel against youth protesters exercising their democratic rights is unacceptable, a group of former bureaucrats said on Friday. This statement comes in the wake of increasing tensions and violence during protests across the country, particularly focused on the youth, who have increasingly taken to the streets to voice their grievances over various issues.
The Constitutional Conduct Group expressed shock at the “brutal police action against peaceful student protesters ventilating legitimate nationwide grievances” during their protest on Monday. This incident reflects a broader context of civil unrest and the challenges faced by young people in expressing their dissent in a democratic society. The right to protest is a fundamental aspect of democracy, allowing citizens to express their views and demand accountability from their government. However, the response from law enforcement in recent times has raised serious concerns about the balance between maintaining public order and respecting civil liberties.
The agitation in the national capital began on June 6, when the Cockroach Janta Party initiated a protest at Jantar Mantar demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged irregularities in the conduct of competitive exams. The protests were sparked by widespread dissatisfaction with the education system and the perceived lack of transparency and fairness in the examination process. Students, many of whom feel that their futures are at stake, have rallied together to demand reform and accountability.
On Monday, thousands joined the protest after police forcibly took activist Sonam Wangchuk, who had been on a hunger strike for three weeks, to the hospital. Wangchuk's hunger strike was a form of protest against the government's inaction regarding the issues raised by the students. His removal from the protest site was seen by many as an attempt to undermine the movement and silence dissent. Their march to Parliament was met with a crackdown by the police, resulting in dozens of injuries as officers used lathis, fired tear gas shells, and deployed pellet guns against the demonstrators. This violent response has been condemned by various civil society groups and individuals who argue that such actions are disproportionate and counterproductive.
This police action intensified the agitation, which quickly spread to other parts of the country. The use of force against young protesters has not only sparked outrage among students but has also drawn the attention of various human rights organizations and political commentators, who are calling for accountability and reform within the police force. The implications of these protests extend beyond the immediate grievances of the students; they highlight a growing discontent with the current political climate and the government's approach to dissent.
In an open letter on Friday, the group of retired bureaucrats stated that they were “deeply disturbed to note that the use of police repression and state violence is increasingly becoming the norm to counter any public protest or agitation.” This sentiment reflects a growing concern among citizens and former officials alike about the erosion of democratic norms and the increasing militarization of police forces in response to civil unrest. The letter further emphasized the particular vulnerability of student protesters, stating, “This is especially reprehensible when the protesters are students as young as thirteen and fourteen years, many of them girls.” The involvement of minors in these protests raises additional ethical and legal questions about the responsibilities of the state to protect its young citizens.
The group criticized the government for initiating a “meaningless dialogue” under public pressure, characterized by photo-op visits to the injured in hospitals, while the list of arrested individuals remains undisclosed. This criticism points to a broader issue of accountability and transparency within the government, particularly in how it addresses public dissent. The lack of clarity regarding arrests and the treatment of protesters has led to calls for greater oversight and reform in how law enforcement engages with citizens during protests.
“These young citizens deserve empathy, dialogue, protection, and solutions, not pellets and lathis,” the group emphasized. This statement underscores the need for a more compassionate and constructive approach to handling protests, particularly those involving young people who are often expressing their frustrations with the system in a peaceful manner. The response from the government and police can significantly impact the future of civic engagement and the relationship between the state and its citizens.
They also condemned the orders issued on Thursday to close offices and shops in central Delhi, along with disruptions to public transport, which they claimed made it difficult for citizens to reach the protest site. Such measures are often seen as attempts to stifle dissent and limit the ability of citizens to assemble and express their views. The implications of these actions can lead to a chilling effect on future protests, as individuals may feel discouraged from participating due to the potential for government backlash.
“Facial Recognition Vans were deployed to live-scan peaceful protesters, constituting a violation of the citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, as enunciated by the Supreme Court… which could be weaponized as tools of intimidation and suppression of fundamental rights,” the former civil servants stated. The use of technology in policing protests raises significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding privacy rights and the potential for misuse of data collected during such operations. This development has sparked debates about the balance between security and civil liberties in a democratic society.
The retired bureaucrats demanded that an independent judicial inquiry be established into the police’s actions on Monday, including the use of pellet guns and shock batons. They also called for the immediate suspension and departmental action against the officers responsible. The call for an independent inquiry reflects a desire for accountability and a recognition that the actions of law enforcement must be scrutinized to ensure that they align with democratic principles and human rights standards.
The detained students must be released unconditionally, they insisted, adding that those injured should receive medical care and compensation. This demand highlights the importance of addressing the immediate needs of those affected by the violence and ensuring that victims receive the support they require to recover. The implications of these demands extend beyond the current protests, as they call for a broader reevaluation of how the state engages with its citizens, particularly in times of unrest.
The retired civil servants urged the government to initiate a structured dialogue with student representatives and withdraw all police cases against the protesters. This call for dialogue emphasizes the need for constructive engagement between the government and the youth, who are increasingly vocal about their concerns and aspirations. The government must recognize the importance of listening to the voices of young people and addressing their grievances in a meaningful way.
“The government must remember that its primary duty is to serve the people, especially the youth who represent India’s demographic dividend,” they concluded. This statement serves as a reminder of the potential that young people hold in shaping the future of the country and the importance of fostering an environment where their voices are heard and respected.
The 93 signatories to the letter include notable figures such as Punjab’s former Director General of Police Julio Ribeiro, Delhi’s former Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung, former Indian ambassador Gautam Mukhopadhaya, Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, Former Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, and former Indian Administrative Service officer and activist Harsh Mander. The diverse backgrounds of the signatories lend weight to their concerns and reflect a growing consensus among former officials that the state must prioritize the protection of civil liberties and the promotion of constructive dialogue in addressing public grievances.
To learn more about the latest developments in Crime & Law, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
