Top News

New Delhi: The Delhi Police denied using excessive force on student protestors during the Cockroach Janta Party-led protest on July 20, adding that the cops in plain clothes were part of a “crowd control measure”.

Delhi Deputy Police Commissioner Sachin Sharma filed a counter-affidavit late Monday night, August 17, before the Supreme Court defending the use of force, after multiple petitions sought a Court-monitored investigation into the alleged police brutality. He asserted that force was used only after protestors resorted to violence.

The police said that they used graded force with nearly 5,000 police officers stationed at the site to manage the crowd of over 30,000 people, spread across three kilometres.

The crowd went out of control, which triggered a struggle among the demonstrators, resulting in both police personnel and protestors getting injured, the affidavit read. According to the Delhi Police, more than 240 uniformed officers and around 200 protestors sustained injuries.

The affidavit stated that the allegation of excessive force cannot hold, as the protest was infiltrated by history-sheeters and anti-social elements. Since permission was denied to the CJP to hold the Parliament march, the affidavit said it was an illegal gathering. The attempt to move towards the Parliament was an illegal act by an unlawful assembly, the police said.

The allegations and petitions filed before the court are based on selective images, incomplete videos, unverified media and social media reports, the police claimed.

They added that such allegations paint a one-sided picture and fail to show the police’s lawful action.

Cops in plain clothes explained

The police responded to videos showing cops dressed in civilian clothing, stating that it is part of a “normal arrangement” followed by police globally to keep vigil.

Many protestors had alleged that police officers in plain clothes were carrying nail-studded lathis and inflicting violence on peaceful demonstrators.

“The deployment of police staff in plain clothes in the big rallies and demonstrations, Republic Day gathering, Independence Day gathering or any big congregation is a part of the normal arrangement that is followed by the police departments globally, to keep a vigil on anti-social elements or any criminal activity that poses a threat to the gathering or movement,” the affidavit said.

The police said these officers are described as “spotters” who were part of crowd-control measures. They aim to merge with the protestors “to avoid being identified by the anti-social elements and criminals and to be in a position to provide immediate assistance to anyone being harassed at the protest site,” the Delhi Police said.

They denied use of lathis with nails, saying it was just one “solitary video” portraying their use. “It appears to be only a solitary video, and if the video is analysed in full, it would be clear that…the said lathi is in the hands of the protestors and not the police officials.”

‘Facial recognition used for profiling criminals, not every protester’

The officials also addressed the petition challenging Delhi Police’s use of facial recognition at Jantar Mantar. They said it was to profile those with a past criminal record and not every protestor. They said the software was not deployed for indiscriminate surveillance or collection of personal data of peaceful protestors.

“The events spiralled into an escalatory matrix,” the police said, explaining how the situation at the protest site worsened despite repeated “requests and persuasions”.

“A section of the protestors turned aggressive and attempted to breach the police barricades in a bid to advance towards the Parliament,” the Delhi Police said.

The affidavit claimed that some individuals started attacking the police and other security forces stationed at the barricades and other deployed spots. “They even started manhandling and pulling the lady uniformed police officers as well as their male counterparts into the crowd,” the police said.

The protesters caused extensive damage to government vehicles, police vehicles, barricades, and other public property, and injuries to police personnel, creating a grave law-and-order as well as security situation, the police said, defending its use of force against protestors.

‘Police officers attacked in mob lynching fashion’

They also accused some protesters of mob lynching police officers. “Disturbing visuals of big groups of protesters targeting lone police officials with stones and sticks, beating them up without any provocation, almost in a mob lynching fashion.”

Officials noted that students “will not do such criminal acts” and said there are multiple videos “showing how the protestors were pulling off the protective gear worn by the police officers, dragging them, removing their helmets, and deliberately pushing them onto the stone pavement, thereby causing various kinds of bodily injuries to over 240 officers and personnel, including female police officers.”

The affidavit pointed out “heavy stone-pelting” on police officers near the Sansad Marg. However, footage from the scene also showed a uniformed cop throwing stones at protesters. The police said that a group of protesters entered the building of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and began throwing furniture on cops. “Not only this, they started breaking the walls of the said building; they started using those bricks to attack the officers,” the affidavit read.

It said that stone pelting was so severe that several officers got injured. “The peaceful protest took a violent turn, and the crowd became uncontrollable due to the acts of miscreants and anti-social elements disguised amongst the protestors,” Delhi Police said.

‘Nametags of officers became detached during violence’

The affidavit said that the violent conduct of a “section of the protestors” caused nameplates of some police personnel to be damaged, and some became detached when they were “roughened up and manhandled”.

At one point, the police said protestors, “females included, started attacking the police officers, snatching their sticks, lady officers were being pulled into the dense crowd, and the officers of the Answering Respondent had no choice but to contain the aggressors with required use of force.”