The Supreme Court on Thursday directed that petitions, affidavits, video recordings and other evidence concerning alleged police excesses and violence during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protests at Jantar Mantar be placed before its High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC), after the panel reported receiving very few complaints despite repeated public notices.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the committee to continue its fact-finding exercise using the available material rather than delay proceedings indefinitely while awaiting further complaints.
The Court also clarified that affected individuals could submit information anonymously, without disclosing their names, telephone numbers or other personal details.
Committee Reports Limited Response Despite Nationwide Publicity
The HPEC, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy, informed the Court that its efforts to invite complaints had produced little response.
Examining the committee’s action taken report dated October 31, the Bench noted that notices inviting submissions had appeared in 149 newspapers nationwide on October 17. The committee had also established an online portal and provided an email address, allowing complaints to be submitted electronically, physically or through registered post.
Following the limited response, the committee issued another communication on October 21. Nevertheless, hardly any complaints reached its portal, while none were received by email.
The committee also conducted a sitting at its office on October 29 after publicising the proceedings through print and electronic media. Only one complainant attended and submitted an affidavit. Some police personnel also appeared before the panel.
Taking note of these developments, the Supreme Court directed that materials already filed in the pending petitions be transmitted to the HPEC for consideration.
Petitioners Dispute Findings on Complaints
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing certain petitioners, contested the suggestion that the committee had not received adequate representations.
He submitted that the petitioners had approached the HPEC before its online portal became operational and had made another submission after its launch. According to him, they were informed that their representations would be examined in due course.
Senior advocate Vrinda Grover argued that evidence already submitted to the Supreme Court, including material allegedly documenting police excesses, should be made available to the committee. She maintained that individual victims should not have to separately approach the panel when relevant material was already before the Court.
Grover also alleged that no FIR had been registered concerning the reported incidents of violence and police excesses.
Sankaranarayanan raised a further concern regarding the absence of departmental proceedings against police personnel. He pointed out that the Supreme Court’s earlier order constituting the committee had expressly left open the possibility of disciplinary action against officers involved in misconduct.
Justice Bagchi clarified that the committee’s appointment did not restrict police authorities or superior officers from initiating action where they found that personnel deployed at the protest site had committed any transgression.
Centre Seeks Direct Complaints From Victims
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, submitted that petitioners pursuing public interest litigation might lack direct knowledge of the alleged incidents. He argued that those who had personally experienced violence should approach the committee.
The Chief Justice encouraged counsel representing the petitioners to persuade affected individuals to provide information to the HPEC.
The Bench observed that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the volume of material petitioners claimed to have submitted and the information actually received by the committee.
It consequently permitted the petitioners to forward all relevant records, including videos, petitions and affidavits, directly to the panel through its designated channels.
Panel Member Relieved on Personal Grounds
The Supreme Court also accepted the request of retired Meghalaya Director General of Police L R Bishnoi to be relieved from the enquiry committee for personal reasons.
Besides Justice R Subhash Reddy, the panel includes former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court judge Justice Shalinder Kaur and former CBI Director Rishi Kumar Shukla.
Background of the CJP Protests
The Supreme Court constituted the HPEC in August while considering petitions concerning alleged police excesses against student demonstrators and allegations of violence directed at police personnel.
The proceedings arose from protests organised under the leadership of the CJP, which began at Jantar Mantar on June 20 and subsequently spread to several cities.
The agitation centred on demands for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
During a July 20 march towards Parliament in Delhi, clashes broke out between demonstrators and security personnel. Police used lathis and tear gas shells to disperse protesters attempting to advance towards Parliament.
The agitation ended on July 25 following Pradhan’s resignation and the government’s acceptance of the CJP’s remaining demands.
