Delhi HC Flags Non-Isolated Police Excess Against CJP Students; Questions Accountability as Viral Videos Expose Brutality
From Our Correspondent
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Delhi Police and the Centre on petitions alleging excessive and disproportionate force against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) student protesters during their July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march, observing that the incidents were “not isolated” and could not be brushed aside by directing victims to file private complaints.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya directed preservation of CCTV footage and other video evidence while seeking responses. Petitioners placed before the court multiple videos showing police personnel, some in plain clothes, using lathis, tear gas and physical force on largely unarmed students demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged examination irregularities. One clip that has triggered nationwide outrage shows Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (North East) Sandeep Lamba apparently slapping a woman protester near the barricades.
Under Indian law and Supreme Court jurisprudence, the use of force by police is strictly governed by the principles of necessity and proportionality. Force may be employed only when absolutely required to prevent imminent harm or serious breach of public order, and even then it must be the minimum force necessary. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials—widely cited by Indian courts—require that force be used only as a last resort, after clear warnings, and never as collective punishment. Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty, has been interpreted to prohibit arbitrary or excessive state violence. Lathi charges and tear gas must follow graded response protocols; targeting non-violent individuals, especially women, or using allegedly modified weapons such as nail-studded batons, constitutes a clear violation of these standards.
Yet the visual evidence from Jantar Mantar paints a disturbing picture of excess. Protesters allege that officers dragged individuals, pulled women’s hair, and administered repeated blows even after resistance had ceased. Over a hundred students reportedly required medical attention at RML Hospital, with several head injuries and fractures. Police claim more than 100 of their personnel were also injured and that the crowd turned violent with stone-pelting. The High Court, however, declined to accept the government’s characterisation of the petitions as mere “publicity-seeking.” The bench noted that when videos of senior officers assaulting civilians surface and multiple accounts of disproportionate force emerge, the matter acquires a public dimension that cannot be reduced to individual FIRs.
Sandeep Lamba has since been removed from the Jantar Mantar deployment and directed to return to his regular posting—an administrative step that falls far short of the independent inquiry demanded by petitioners. Former Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale has now filed a formal complaint at Parliament Street police station seeking registration of an FIR against Lamba, noting that the government’s courtroom assertion that “nobody approached the police” left him no choice.
The Supreme Court on the same day refused an urgent hearing on a related plea, with the Chief Justice remarking that the bench did not wish to examine video footage at that stage. The contrast is stark: while the highest court declined intervention, the High Court has at least insisted on the preservation of evidence and a formal response.
Democratic policing requires that those who wield the state’s monopoly on force remain accountable when that force is misused. The viral images of a uniformed officer striking a woman protester, the claims of modified weapons, and the scale of injuries to students raise fundamental questions about command responsibility and training. The Delhi High Court’s refusal to treat these as isolated incidents is a necessary first step. Whether it leads to genuine accountability—or merely another round of affidavits—will determine if the rule of law applies equally when the state’s own agents appear on camera using excessive force against citizens exercising their right to protest.
