The Supreme Court has proposed a high-powered committee to investigate allegations of police excesses.
The panel is expected to include a former Supreme Court judge, a retired high court Chief Justice and a retired DGP-rank police officer.
The Centre said cases against student protesters without serious criminal records could be quashed.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday proposed setting up a high-powered committee to examine all issues arising from last month’s student protests over the alleged NEET-UG question paper leak, including allegations of police excesses during the July 20 Parliament march in Delhi. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the proposed panel would include a former Supreme Court judge, a retired high court Chief Justice and a retired police officer of Director General of Police rank.
The bench, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said it had already obtained the consent of a former CBI director and a retired state DGP to serve on the panel. The court is expected to formally constitute the committee after receiving suggestions from the parties on its composition and terms of reference.
Committee To Examine Complaints Of Police Excesses
CJI Kant said the panel would examine the various allegations arising from the protests and give victims an opportunity to be heard.
“We are quite sure that the committee will give an immediate voice and audience to any victim who approaches it,” the CJI said, adding that the court would consider the committee’s recommendations and that “the necessary legal consequences must follow”.
The July 20 student protest and Parliament march, led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), witnessed clashes between protesters and security personnel. Police used lathis and tear gas to disperse protesters attempting to march towards Parliament.
Petitioners have also alleged that security personnel used pellet guns and facial-recognition technology to identify and monitor protesters.
The CJI said the committee would examine complaints involving sexual assault, online harassment and the alleged social-media victimisation of vulnerable protesters.
“Whosoever is responsible, there can be no excuse and no justification. It must be taken seriously and taken to its logical conclusion,” CJI Kant said.
Petitioners Seek Action Against Police Personnel
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for one of the petitioners, alleged that videos showed individual police personnel using force against women protesters.
“There are certain individual police officers in respect of whom videos are available,” Farasat said, alleging that some police personnel had used lathis inappropriately against women.
He urged the court to take immediate action against the officers concerned instead of waiting for the committee’s final findings.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for a petitioner, backed the demand and called for a “very strong message” to be sent to police personnel accused of misconduct.
Referring to the Delhi Police's response to the petitions, Sankaranarayanan said there was an admission that plainclothes police personnel were present and that action had been taken during the protest, but “complete silence” on any administrative action against the personnel allegedly involved in misconduct.
The CJI, however, cautioned against issuing directions that could interfere with the proposed committee’s work.
“If we start examining or giving opinion or direction, then probably we will be curtailing the role of the high-powered committee,” CJI Kant said.
He added that the committee could examine individual issues as well as broader questions, including guidelines and protocols governing the use of force during protests.
Centre Says Cases Against Most Protesters Can Be Quashed
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that facial-recognition technology used at the protest site was intended to identify people who already had criminal records.
According to Mehta, 2,873 individuals identified through the process had records involving serious offences such as murder, rape and abduction. He said cases against other student protesters could be quashed.
“FIRs against student protestors must be quashed. How to do… your lordships can decide. Anti-social elements who infiltrated have to be probed,” Mehta told the bench.
The petitioners also sought compensation for people allegedly injured during the clashes. Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover sought compensation for two people who allegedly suffered pellet-gun injuries.
A lawyer representing families of police personnel injured during the violence also sought compensation for them.
