Brutality and Accountability of the Excessive Force used by Delhi Police at Jantar Mantar
S.R. Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)
Here we critically examine the legality and proportionality of the Delhi Police's actions at Jantar Mantar by analysing the constitutional framework governing peaceful protest, statutory provisions regulating police powers, judicial precedents, international human rights standards, and the competing narratives surrounding the incident. Rather than presuming guilt or innocence, the discussion evaluates the legal principles that should guide any objective assessment of police conduct in a democratic society.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that peaceful protest is an indispensable feature of constitutional democracy. Citizens possess the right to express disagreement with governmental policies, mobilize public opinion, and demand accountability through peaceful demonstrations. Public spaces such as Jantar Mantar have historically served as symbolic forums where diverse social groups have voiced grievances and sought governmental attention.
Nevertheless, these freedoms are not absolute. Articles 19(2) and 19(3) authorize the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, public order, morality, and security. The crucial constitutional requirement, however, is that restrictions must satisfy the test of reasonableness. Administrative convenience or political discomfort cannot justify arbitrary suppression of peaceful assembly.
The doctrine of proportionality, now firmly embedded in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, requires that any restriction on a fundamental right must pursue a legitimate objective, employ the least restrictive means available, and maintain a reasonable balance between public interest and individual liberty. Consequently, police intervention against demonstrators must always be evaluated through the lens of constitutional proportionality rather than administrative expediency.
The Delhi Police possess statutory authority to regulate assemblies and maintain public order under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Delhi Police Act, and other applicable laws. Police officers may impose restrictions, regulate traffic, establish security cordons, and disperse unlawful assemblies where genuine threats to public safety exist.
However, these powers are accompanied by corresponding legal limitations.
Indian law does not authorize unlimited or arbitrary use of force. Even where an assembly becomes unlawful, police action must comply with established principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability. Force should always represent the last available option after persuasion, negotiation, warnings, and less intrusive measures have failed.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the State cannot extinguish constitutional freedoms merely because exercising those freedoms creates administrative inconvenience. Democratic governments are expected to accommodate peaceful dissent rather than suppress it.
The legal principle governing police action may therefore be summarized in four requirements: Legality: Force must be expressly authorized by law. Necessity: No less restrictive alternative should be available. Proportionality: The degree of force must correspond to the actual threat. Accountability: Every use of force should remain subject to judicial and public scrutiny.
Failure to satisfy any one of these requirements raises serious constitutional concerns.
India is a party to several international human rights instruments that recognize freedom of peaceful assembly as a fundamental democratic right. Although international conventions are not automatically enforceable domestically, Indian courts have frequently relied upon them while interpreting constitutional rights.
The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provide internationally accepted standards governing police conduct. These principles require law enforcement agencies to employ force only when strictly necessary, to minimize injury, to distinguish between peaceful and violent participants, and to ensure prompt medical assistance to injured persons.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has similarly emphasized that restrictions on peaceful assembly must remain exceptional rather than routine. The burden rests upon the State to demonstrate that restrictions are necessary in a democratic society.
These standards reinforce India's own constitutional commitment to protecting civil liberties while maintaining public order.
According to numerous protesters, civil society organizations, and human rights defenders, the police resorted to excessive force despite the predominantly peaceful character of the demonstration. They alleged indiscriminate lathi charges, physical assaults upon students and women, use of tear gas, arbitrary detentions, and unnecessary violence after protesters had already been dispersed. Several legal associations demanded an independent judicial inquiry into the incident, arguing that police conduct violated constitutional guarantees and established principles governing crowd control.
The Delhi Police has rejected these allegations. According to official statements, no permission had been granted for the proposed march towards Parliament, protesters attempted to breach police barricades, some participants allegedly resorted to stone-pelting, and a significant number of police personnel sustained injuries while attempting to maintain public order. The police therefore maintain that the use of force became unavoidable to prevent further escalation.
The central legal question is not whether force was used but whether the force employed exceeded constitutional limits. To judge it we have to see whether the gathering was peaceful before police intervention? Were adequate warnings issued? Were negotiations attempted? Did protesters possess realistic opportunities to disperse voluntarily? Was force graduated from minimal to greater levels only as circumstances required? Were women, elderly persons, journalists, and bystanders protected? Was medical assistance promptly provided to the injured? Did police distinguish between violent individuals and peaceful participants?
From the videos available on social media, it is seen that the gathering was mostly peaceful. There is no video available on social media which shows that adequate warnings were given. Had adequate warnings been given it is likely that the protesters would have dispersed voluntarily. The Modi government made a half-hearted effort to negotiate on 19th July but no assurance was given to the protesters. AS seen from the videos on social media the force used by Delhi Police was excessive. A single protester was canned/lathi charged by more than one police man. The protesters were hit on head and chest as against to hit below the waist as mandated by rules.
As seen from the videos Delhi police men are seen molesting women, hit the journalists, bystanders and peaceful agitators. The people just passing by or standing on roadside were also hit mercilessly. The videos show that the protesters caught the police men holding canes with long nails which can cause very grievous injuries. It is also seen that the police men were wielding 6 ft long lathis which give a very heavy blow when hit with it. It is shocking that when police in the whole country have replaced the lathis with short canes, Delhi police continue to arm itself with British time lathis.
The shocking thing seen in the videos is that most of the police men were not putting on name plates and other badges as required by uniform rules. As such the identity of the police men using force cannot be ascertained if required at any stage. When objected to it by the protesters the concerned persons or their officers could not reply. One woman RAF officer said that the police men had taken off the name plates due to hot weather. Quite funny!
Apart from it many videos show that there were many men in plain clothes wielding canes and using them against the protesters along with the uniformed men. When asked about their identity by the protesters they could not reply. It is very suspicious as to who were they and who put them on this duty. Some persons on the social media have said that these are members of the Modi-Shah Force (MSF) which is a force like SS of Hitler. They are recruited from BJP/RSS cadre. These plain clothes men were seen lathi charging and pelting stones at the protesters. Even some uniformed men were also seen pelting stones at the agitators. It is necessary to point out that the protesters had found a truck load of stones parked near Jantar Mantar. One broken car was also parked there. Some police men were photographed by protesters who were breaking the glasses of a police car parked there.
It is shocking that Pallet Gun was used by Delhi police but it has been denied by them. To counter it there is a video where RAF man is seen firing a Pallet Gun while protesters are requesting him not to fire. In another video protesters are seen picking up red coloured shells of Pallet Gun rounds. So far four persons have been traced who have been hit by Pallet Gun pallets and are under going treatment at RML hospital. The use of Pallet Gun is restricted as it can cause loss of eyesight but it has been used by Delhi Police with impunity. Not only this Shock Batons, which give a severe electric shock, were also used.
From the above details it transpires that the force used by Delhi police at Jantar Mantar on 20th July was excessive and brutal. The protestors were charged with canes, lathis, tear gas, Pellet guns, Shock Batons and iron rods. The women were molested and misbehaved with by both uniformed and plain clothes men. The police seem to be less interested in dispersing them but teach them a lesson. It has resulted in injury to a large number of protesters who are hospitalised. The police has arrested a large number of protesters.
As regards the accountability of the brutality and use of excessive force by Delhi Police, it falls squarely on Union Home Minister Amit Shah because Delhi Police is directly under his command. Hence the credit for police excesses, violation of uniform rules, use of canes with nails and lathis, use of Pallet guns and shock batons goes to Amit Shah. The officers responsible for excessive use of force, violation of rules regarding use of force and molestation of women and deploying plain clothes men should also be punished. A judicial enquiry about this dreadful episode should also be ordered.
No comments:
Post a Comment