SC bars coercive action against student protesters; directs release of minors

Bharatmorningnews.com – “`html

Supreme Court Issues Protective Order for Student Demonstrators

On Tuesday, the apex court delivered a significant judgment concerning the recent wave of student demonstrations that swept through Delhi and multiple states nationwide. The bench emphasized that any violence occurring during these gatherings must undergo a comprehensive, unbiased examination. Additionally, the court mandated the immediate liberation of young individuals who had been detained during the rallies.

Key Directions from the Bench

The three-judge panel, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, established clear boundaries for the interim safeguards. These protections would not apply to individuals with prior criminal records or those classified as anti-social elements.

Notices were dispatched to the central government along with the chief secretaries representing eight states: Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam, Kerala, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. The judiciary highlighted that both claims of police brutality and incidents where officers were harmed necessitate separate investigations.

“The allegations by petitioners make out a prima facie case for an independent probe,” said the bench.

The court further specified that the forthcoming inquiry should address grievances submitted by relatives of law enforcement officers who sustained injuries.

Constitutional Protection for Peaceful Protests

This ruling emerged from several petitions challenging the heavy-handed tactics employed during demonstrations sparked by examination paper leaks. The July 20 march at Parliament in Delhi served as a focal point, followed by similar gatherings in various regions.

During proceedings, the judges noted that constitutional guarantees shield peaceful assemblies. The CJI remarked that student demonstrations demanding attention represent legitimate expressions of civic rights.

“It was completely a peaceful protest by students raising demands. Such a protest is permissible and protected under the Constitution,” observed the CJI.

The chief justice added that while peaceful gatherings may attract outsiders with separate objectives, these individuals effectively become part of the event. Consequently, a thorough examination of all aspects becomes essential.

Allegations of Excessive Force

Multiple concerns were raised regarding the methods employed by law enforcement. These included the deployment of pellet guns, electric batons, and lathi charges that allegedly caused severe harm. Women demonstrators and journalists reportedly faced physical assault, while officers wearing plain clothes were accused of participating in violent incidents.

“Use of pellet guns, electric batons and lathi resulting in life-threatening injuries are some of the issues… Excessive use of pellet guns is something that needs to be looked into.”

Reports indicated that more than two hundred police officers sustained injuries throughout the protest period.

Government Response and Future Steps

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both the Union government and Delhi Police, expressed no opposition to an autonomous investigation. He emphasized that those responsible for harming students must face accountability.

“If students have suffered in any manner, perpetrators have to be brought to book,” said Mehta.

Mehta proposed that disruptive elements might have infiltrated the student ranks, suggesting that young participants themselves likely avoided violent behavior. He also recommended examining attacks directed at police officers.

The bench cautioned against undermining legitimate peaceful movements through hasty conclusions. A methodology grounded in scientific evidence rather than initial assumptions was deemed necessary.

Looking ahead, the court is contemplating the formation of an elevated committee to examine occurrences outside Delhi. The judiciary may also revise existing legal frameworks that guide police conduct during public demonstrations.

“The previous judgments with the passage of time may require some modifications…A time has come to collate all these principles and update them,” said the bench.

Regarding specific measures, the court welcomed input on modifications to tear gas deployment and other crowd control techniques.

Interim Measures and Next Hearing

As temporary provisions, the court ordered the safeguarding of various forms of recorded evidence. This includes CCTV recordings, drone footage, body-camera videos, wireless communication logs, and telephone calls connected to the protests.

Police forces were instructed to maintain digital records of demonstrators while avoiding the disclosure of personal details to the public. The case is scheduled for further consideration next Monday, when responses from the central government and concerned states will be submitted to the court. “`