By Arun Srivastava
Soon after hitting the street the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashistha, who led the protesting Delhi Police personnel described the Delhi Police personnel agitation as an “organic call”, saying “Look, I did not make this call; it emerged organically. It was an organic call made by police personnel. It is absolutely clear that I am joining this call”. The protesters demanded roll back of transfer orders of Vashistha and Shahdara Station House Officer (SHO) Inspector Arun Kumar, who were moved following a scuffle with an advocate at the Shahdara police station.
They also raised two other demands: safety, treatment, and self-esteem of police personnel inside court complexes, calling for a stronger police presence and better security and formation of a formal redressal committee and an appropriate forum to voice grievances against alleged misbehaviour, threats, and pressure from lawyers. The three demands are of quite serious nature: transfer was of punitive nature and was taken under pressure from lawyers’ strikes without a fair internal review.
Their raising and tagging the issue of alleged intimidation, disruption of police station functioning, and physical confrontations, asserting that if police stations and courts are not safe for the force, operational security breaks down with transfer of the two policemen was intriguing. The striking policemen requested a structured, institutionalized forum or committee to voice grievances against alleged misbehavior, pressure, and threats from legal practitioners. Rather than ad-hoc transfers triggered by street/court protests or strikes, the police personnel want a balanced two-way communication channel (such as open-house Sampark Sabhas or digital interactive forums with top leadership like the Police Commissioner or Lieutenant Governor) to fairly adjudicate disputes between lawyers and law enforcement.
In the days following the transfers, discontent brewed among lower and mid-tier police personnel. Ground-level officers felt that the department consistently penalized its own personnel to appease external groups. If there was so much of anger why then large number of police personnel did not come to streets as had happened in 2019. Mass protest had taken in 2019, where over 2,000 Delhi Police personnel gathered outside the old headquarters at ITO following violent clashes with lawyers at the Tis Hazari Court complex.
Undeniably the issues raised by the agitating policemen on November 2, needed a high level intervention and discussion and a protest by motely group of 800 policemen would not evolved a long term solution. It would not be an exaggeration to say that protest was after thought to use it to frustrate the popular agitation against Narendra Modi and frustrate any move to intensify the movement.
Quite significantly Supreme Court has intervened and expressed serious concern over police use of brutal force against student and civilian protesters. The court emphasized that the right to peaceful protest is constitutionally guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The court has stated that mere agitation or public gathering does not justify police excess. It has also ordered inquiries into allegations of police brutality, including the use of and pellet guns. Another Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had publicly expressed deep distress at seeing young IPS officers personally assaulting unarmed protesters, stating that the “detachment expected of police officers appears to be disappearing” and that effective policing does not require human rights violations.
Judicial intervention underlined its concern for protecting democratic rights and the rule of law. This judicial intervention has unnerved the police officials of the rank of ACP. There is no denying that Delhi Police personnel resorting to strike was an attempt to create pressure on judiciary, avoid court penalties and conceal its act of perpetrating brutality against students. Delhi police otherwise too has the track record of being ruthless and perpetrating inhuman torture on the anti-Modi and Shah individuals and forces. The bar association giving a strike call against Vashistha threatening advocates with a revolver at the Shahdara police station during an inquiry, is testimony.
The Delhi High Court took up multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) regarding the alleged use of nail-fitted batons, electric batons, and pellets, ordering the Delhi Police to preserve all CCTV footage and file a response. An Independent People’s Tribunal also formally indicted the Delhi Police for utilizing unnecessary and disproportionate force during the student demonstrations.
What has been most interesting is Vashistha organised the protest against his own transfer. Of the 400 ACPs barely two no other ACP came out in open and extended their support. Notwithstanding non-gazetted Delhi Police personnel (from constables to inspectors) and also ACPs are legally prohibited from forming or joining trade unions or service associations, the rest personnel preferred to maintain a distance from Vashistha, which is quite intriguing. If he stood for justice, other officers ought to have extended support.
Vashistha and Inspector Arun Kumar were transferred following an October 23, scuffle at the Shahdara police station in which an advocate sustained a serious head injury and lawyers launched an indefinite strike. Lawyers had come to police station to seek action against the accused who had allegedly assaulted advocate Lalit Bansal during a parking dispute, leaving him with a serious head injury. Though Vashistha had initially assured them the accused would be arrested. However, the advocates later discovered the accused had been released without action, leading to a follow-up confrontation, allegations of police intimidation, a widespread lawyers’ strike, and subsequent transfers of the officers. Lawyers also alleged that Vashistha took out his service revolver and threatened them.
Had it been an internal matter it could have been sorted out under the rules of police manual instead of resorting to fierce protest on streets . it makes clear that this has some ominous intentions. Institutional protocols dictate that internal police matters should be handled through the standard mechanisms of the police manual. Instead of using the internal manual, these personnel took to the streets with the intentions to create pressure on the judiciary, not to punish them and also send the message that they were right; precisely playing the victim card.
Analysts who view this as an ominous sign argue that when a disciplined, armed state force bypasses its internal hierarchy to protest publicly, it signals a breakdown in institutional accountability. From this viewpoint, the agitation demonstrates a pushback by lower and mid-tier officers against legal accountability, raising concerns that the force seeks unchecked authority when dealing with public dissent. Police personnel framing their actions as a necessary defence of their operational dignity against influential bar associations, underlines unprecedented breakdown of internal discipline as a systemic signal that could affect how future public protests are managed. The role and actions of the Delhi Police during public protests have been subjects of public debate.
The Delhi police has been politicised by the BJP on communal lines . Violent clashes between protesters and police during the youth-led ‘Chalo Sansad’ march in New Delhi in July 2026 have reignited debate over the constitutional limits of policing public protests and the State’s power to restrict civil and digital liberties. Human Rights Watch and various student groups have alleged that police systematically confiscated phones to prevent the recording of excesses, deployed personnel without required name badges, and arbitrary designated assemblies as “unlawful” to legitimize crackdowns and shield specific officers from public identification. It is a known fact that police department’s behavior is influenced by the ruling right-wing establishment. Even UN experts, have frequently called out the Delhi Police for a pattern of excessive force, arbitrary detentions, and crackdowns on youth and student movements.
It is worth mentioning that Congress has been working to build systemic ties with younger legal professionals. This includes a pilot project spearheaded by Rahul Gandhi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi to engage Gen Z lawyers and interns to assist Members of Parliament with legal aid and constitutional advocacy. Critics and student outfits, such as the All India Students’ Association (AISA), have historically highlighted that law enforcement handles different groups with distinct standards. The concern that a unified front of legal professionals and student groups would be highly resilient against state crackdowns stems from the fact that lawyers possess institutional legal power, while students provide massive mobilization capability. The Delhi police is scared of this emerging scenario. (IPA Service)
