Delhi Protests: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on pleas against police clampdown; orders preservation of videos

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the Union government and Delhi Police on a batch of petitions concerning the recent Delhi protests – alleged police excesses, restrictions on public movement and de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other recordings relating to the protests.

"All law enforcement agencies are directed to preserve the CCTV footage or any other digital material collected by them. Similarly, such material collected by private parties, they shall also be at liberty to preserve," the Court said.

The Court today did not pass any major direction in the matter except ordering the preservation of evidence.

"All other matters pertaining to the protest issue, we are issuing notice. There are petitions which are overlapping. We can request the Solicitor General's side to appoint a nodal counsel. We would ask the petitioners also to appoint a nodal counsel who can deal with all these petitions and compile the issues which ultimately arise, including identifying those issues which are overlapping. In all these cases, we are issuing notice and asking the respondents to file their replies," CJI Kant said.

The Court urged that no more petitions be filed in relation to the protests.

"We make an earnest appeal to the members of the Bar not to file more petitions. Forty-six matters are already there," CJI Kant said.

In the case challenging de-notification of Jantar Mantar protest, the Court declined to pass any urgent order. Nevertheless, it sought the response of the Delhi Police on the same.

"You have challenged the de-notification. We are issuing notice. Let them come and file their reply. We will see what the reasons are," CJI Kant said.

This was after Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said Jantar Mantar be notified again.

"The de-notification has been done purportedly on the Court's directive. Apparently, on October 9, there was a directive that Jantar Mantar should be de-notified," the senior counsel said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today clarified that no court order led to the decision.

"The Court's judgment is not the basis of the decision. The committee was constituted much before. The committee has given a detailed report," Mehta said.

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta argued that the fundamental right of a citizen to carry out a protest cannot be scuttled because the top court has already ruled in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan that the place has to be somewhere near where protesters can be heard.

"New Delhi is not meant for a select few," the senior counsel said.

The Court today also heard a plea alleging sexual violence and harassment of women journalists during the protests.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising said such acts amount to sexual harassment and urged the Court to setup a committee headed by a woman chairperson.

"This is a petition which specifically addresses the needs of women journalists during the course of their duty and employment. When they go to a protest site, they constitute a class by themselves because they not only have the right to speech, not only have the right to protest, but also the right to work. They go there to perform their duties in exercise of their right to work. Being women, they are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse, being pushed and pulled around, especially by male police officers. Which is not to say that women police officers did not push them. They did," the senior counsel said.

Jaising asked the Court to allow her to file details of allegations in sealed cover, including the names of the women who are willing to come forward.

While acceding to the quest, CJI Kant said,

"Yes. In sealed cover only. The vulnerability will have to be very sensitively and very cautiously taken care of by the Court. We are also prima facie agreeing that the committee in your matter must be predominantly or exclusively composed of women. It may comprise a former woman judge, a former woman IPS officer, a former woman social worker or a social activist with a known track record."

In a petition concerning the entry of INDIA bloc leaders into the Supreme Court premises and others, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia said,

"It is completely unacceptable that this Supreme Court is seized with processions and what has happened within the precincts of the Supreme Court. This cannot happen. I must share the anguish of lawyers practising in the Supreme Court. Two hundred of them have signed a memorandum. They have stated very clearly that this kind of browbeating of the judiciary, firstly, and secondly, shouting... "

At this, CJI Kant said,

"Nobody can browbeat the judiciary."

The Court issued notice to Congress party and Gandhi on that petition.

In Delhi Union of Journalists's plea seeking return of electronic devices allegedly seized by police, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar said,

"The interim relief urgently needed is that the devices of journalists have been seized. We have set that out in the petition. Why are electronic devices being seized? Their livelihood depends on them. Their work depends on them. Their material is in those devices. Those devices must be released to them. The police have no authority whatsoever to seize the devices of journalists."

After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said no devices were seized, the Court issued notice in the matter but did not pass any directions.

The batch of petitions followed restrictions imposed on Metro and railway services, mobile internet connectivity and public gatherings ahead of demonstrations in the national capital.

Protesters, lawyers and journalists subsequently alleged unlawful detention, assault and obstruction by the Delhi Police.

In earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court ordered that authorities could regulate transport services but should not impose blanket prohibitions. It sought compliance reports and subsequently considered allegations that its directions had been violated.

A petition by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader M A Baby and connected contempt proceedings questioned the restrictions and their implementation.

Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami separately challenged the suspension of mobile internet services around the Janpath-Kartavya Path area.

Petitions were also filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Lawyers' Association for Constitution regarding alleged detention and manhandling of advocates. They sought accountability, preservation of evidence and safeguards for access to courts.

The Free Speech Collective, Network of Women in Media, India and Delhi Union of Journalists also approached the Court over alleged assault, detention and obstruction of journalists covering the demonstrations. Separate contempt proceedings allege violations of directions protecting media personnel.

Petitions by parliamentarians AA Rahim and Manoj Kumar Jha raised allegations of unlawful detention, custodial violence and excessive police action against protesters. Member of Parliament (MP) Menaka Guruswamy challenged the detention of political leaders.

A petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is also before the Court.

[Read X Thread]