The Supreme Court is preparing to constitute a high-powered committee to investigate allegations of excessive police force during the Cockroach Janta Party-led Parliament march in Delhi on July 20, widening judicial scrutiny of the authorities’ handling of the youth protests.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana has indicated that the committee will include retired judges and senior former police and investigative officials. The court has sought suggestions on its composition before issuing a detailed order and has said electronic evidence from the clashes will be placed before the panel.
The proposed inquiry is expected to examine allegations against police personnel as well as claims that protesters attacked officers and breached security barricades. The court has stressed that accountability should apply to anyone found to have acted unlawfully, signalling that the investigation will not be confined to complaints against the police.
CCTV recordings, drone footage, wireless communication records, police control room logs and other digital material connected with the demonstrations have already been ordered to be preserved. Video evidence from the July 20 confrontation is expected to become a central part of the committee’s examination.
The CJP has pressed for the committee to have members of unquestionable independence and has argued that protesters affected by the police action should have an effective voice in the process. Party leader Saurav Das has called for people of high calibre and integrity to be chosen, reflecting concern among organisers that the inquiry should command confidence on both sides of the dispute.
The July 20 march began around Jantar Mantar as thousands of protesters sought to move towards Parliament. Police stopped the procession after saying no permission had been granted for such a march. Tear gas and batons were used as sections of the crowd pushed against barricades, while demonstrators accused officers of employing disproportionate force.
Complaints filed after the confrontation alleged that unarmed protesters were assaulted and raised claims involving pellet weapons, iron rods and personnel operating in civilian clothing. Petitions subsequently sought an independent investigation, identification of plainclothes personnel and action wherever evidence disclosed cognisable offences.
Delhi Police has rejected accusations of excessive force. Its affidavit before the Supreme Court says more than 30,000 protesters were present around Jantar Mantar and that the gathering became unlawful when groups attempted to cross successive barricades and advance towards Parliament. Police have maintained that minimum necessary force was used and that officers themselves faced violence.
The dispute has also drawn attention to the use of plainclothes officers during crowd-control operations. Police have defended their deployment as a planned operational measure, rather than an attempt to conceal the identity of personnel involved in the action. The issue is among those likely to receive closer examination once the committee begins reviewing recordings and operational records.
Judicial intervention intensified after the demonstrations spread beyond Delhi. On July 28, the Supreme Court directed authorities not to take coercive action against protesting students and ordered the release of minors detained in connection with the agitation, subject to exceptions involving serious criminal backgrounds. It also said the allegations before it made out a prima facie case for an independent and transparent inquiry.
The court later clarified that governments were free to withdraw or close cases against protesters and narrowed the meaning of “criminal antecedents” so that the exception would primarily cover grave and heinous offences. The bench has now indicated that it may use its constitutional powers to provide broader relief to students facing criminal proceedings, while excluding people with serious criminal histories.
The committee’s mandate could extend beyond determining responsibility for the July 20 violence. The court has discussed the need for clearer standards governing graduated use of police force during protests, including circumstances in which weapons such as pellet guns may be deployed. Allegations involving harassment or assault of women protesters are also expected to fall within the inquiry’s ambit.
