Delhi High Court ordered preservation of CCTV footage and records from the protest.
The pleas seek an SIT probe and FIRs over alleged police brutality.
Petitioners alleged protesters were assaulted, while police claimed the crowd turned violent.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the authorities to preserve CCTV footage, videos and other records connected to the alleged use of excessive force against protesters during the Cockroach Janata Party’s march towards Parliament.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said the material must be retained in accordance with the standard operating procedure issued by the Delhi Police or the Union government.
The court also issued notices to the Centre and Delhi Police on the petitions seeking an investigation by a Special Investigation Team into the alleged police action. The pleas have also sought the registration of FIRs against police personnel, disclosure of deployment and operational records, and disciplinary proceedings against officers found responsible.
“Issue notice. In the meantime, we direct that the relevant record in relation to the incident as mentioned in the writ, including the CCTV footage, videography, if any, shall be preserved in accordance with the SOP issued by the Delhi Police or by the Union of India. List on 11.9,” the court said.
The matter will next be heard on September 11.
Court Says Incident Cannot Be Treated As Isolated
During the hearing, the Bench observed that the allegations raised in the petitions went beyond an isolated incident in which the affected individuals could simply be directed to file private complaints.
“Had it been an isolated incident, situation would have been different. You may have been correct in asking them to go to police to lodge a private complaint. But this is not such an isolated incident,” the court told the authorities.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate N Hariharan said the demonstration had begun peacefully at Jantar Mantar before witnessing what he described as “brutality of the largest measure possible”.
Hariharan alleged that the police used force without issuing an adequate warning or blowing a whistle. He claimed the response was disproportionate and punitive, and that unarmed demonstrators were “beaten black and blue”.
He further alleged that women protesters were molested and more than 90 people were injured. Hariharan urged the court to order the registration of FIRs against identifiable police officers and direct a wider investigation into the events.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that while the size of the gathering had increased by July 20, the protest remained peaceful. He submitted that even the authorities had not initially alleged that the assembly had turned violent.
Singh claimed that police personnel, along with individuals dressed in civilian clothes, attacked demonstrators without provocation. He maintained that the protesters had not engaged in violence.
Petitioners Cite Videos Of Alleged Assault
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also alleged that several people involved in the police action were not wearing uniforms.
He accused Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police Sandeep Lamba of assaulting a woman who was standing on the sidelines and asked the court to summon the officer and hold him accountable.
Referring to purported video recordings of the incident, Sankaranarayanan alleged indiscriminate use of tear gas, baton charges and physical assault against protesters, including women, mothers and relatives accompanying demonstrators.
He told the court that he had reviewed more than 100 videos documenting alleged instances of excessive force and argued that judicial intervention was necessary to ensure such conduct did not become normalised.
Delhi Police Contest Allegations
The Delhi Police opposed the petitions and denied that the protest had remained peaceful. The authorities submitted that videos also showed police personnel sustaining injuries during the confrontation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre, while Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Senior Advocate SV Raju represented the authorities.
Raju argued that the crowd had become unruly, engaged in violence and pelted stones at police personnel. He said anyone alleging the commission of a cognisable offence could approach the magistrate through the remedies available under law, including Section 156(3).
He also accused the petitioners of relying on selectively chosen social media videos while withholding relevant facts.
Describing the pleas as “publicity-seeking petitions”, Raju submitted that the people who were allegedly injured had not themselves approached the court. He argued that the petitions did not justify the issuance of notice.
The High Court, however, directed the preservation of all relevant evidence and sought formal responses from the Centre and Delhi Police before the next hearing.
