The Bihar Police told the Supreme Court a constable fired an AK-47 into the air at Siwan but no one was injured, denying disproportionate force while suspending the officer involved.
New Delhi: The Bihar government has told the Supreme Court that it did not use disproportionate force against student protesters, asserting in a counter-affidavit that although a constable fired four rounds from an AK-47 into the air at Siwan after being trapped in a crowd, no one was injured by that weapon — while conceding the use of tear gas and water cannon and acknowledging that some protesters suffered firearms injuries from a separate incident [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others].
The affidavit, filed in the batch of public-interest petitions alleging police brutality against the students, is the Bihar counterpart to a similar denial filed by the Delhi Police. The allegations and denials that follow are those set out in the State’s affidavit and remain to be tested; no findings have been recorded.
The AK-47 at Siwan
The most closely-watched element of the affidavit concerns the allegation — raised in court by counsel for the petitioners — that an AK-47 rifle was used against protesters at Siwan.
According to the State, the force deployed at Siwan was inadequate, and additional personnel had to be summoned. Near JP Chowk, it said, one constable became trapped in the crowd and fired four rounds from his AK-47 into the air; no one was injured by those bullets. In a separate incident near Hathi Chowk, the affidavit stated, an Assistant Sub-Inspector fired two rounds from his 9 mm pistol to disperse a mob, and three protesters suffered “minor firearms injuries.”
The State was at pains to sever the two events. It underlined that the three injured protesters were not hurt by the AK-47, and were not even present at the location where the rifle was discharged. A ballistic examination, it added, is under way to determine the type of weapon, and the distance and angle of fire.
READ MORE: No Excessive Force Used, Parliament March Was Illegal: Delhi Police To Supreme Court
‘A platoon-level weapon’
Significantly, the affidavit did not defend the propriety of deploying an AK-47 in the situation. It stated that the AK-47 is a platoon-level weapon meant for use in special operations, and not for tackling law-and-order situations, and recorded that the State Director General of Police has issued an instruction on the use of such rifles. The constable who fired the AK-47, it disclosed, has been placed under suspension for “undesired conduct,” and departmental proceedings have been initiated against him.
That combination — denying that the weapon caused injury while acknowledging that its use was improper and disciplining the officer responsible — is the affidavit’s careful posture on the single most damaging allegation against the Bihar Police.
The State’s account of the violence
The affidavit sought to shift the frame from police excess to protester violence. It alleged that protesters damaged public property and that several police officials managing the situation were deliberately attacked by anti-social elements who had merged with the crowd.
It stated that the protests turned violent at several places — Gandhi Maidan near Ghulam Chowk, Jehanabad, Patna, Chapra, Bhagalpur, Sitamarhi, Aurangabad, Katihar, Kishanganj and Siwan. At Chapra, on July 25, the affidavit said, the protest was peaceful until noon before an unruly mob of anti-social elements merged with the crowd and began vandalism and stone-pelting, in which two Block Development Officers, three police inspectors, two sub-inspectors and eleven constables were injured. The affidavit stated that one BDO lost an eye, and that another, whose head was struck by a heavy projectile, is battling for life. Overall, it claimed that 157 police personnel and seven public servants were injured, while conceding that the use of tear gas and water cannon had caused injuries to protesters.
The attribution of the protests
In a politically pointed passage, the affidavit attributed the incidents in Bihar to calls given by the student organisations AISA and RYA — affiliated with the CPI(ML) — and stated that the call for protest by the Cockroach Janta Party on July 24 had no visible impact in the State. The characterisation is the State’s own, advanced in its pleading.
Compliance with the Court’s directions
A substantial part of the affidavit is devoted to demonstrating compliance with the interim directions the Supreme Court has passed in the matter.
The State said that, in response to the Court’s orders, the Additional DGP had been instructed to preserve all video footage and records, and that the personal information and digital data of protesters collected during the demonstrations had been directed not to be disclosed in the public domain or on social media “for the time being.” It stated that no details of the protesters, particularly students, had been published, and that the Bihar Police is not taking coercive measures against protesting students without criminal antecedents.
On detentions, the affidavit recorded that all children below 18 who had been arrested or detained in connection with the protests, and who had no criminal antecedents, were released on a simple bond executed by themselves or their families. It placed on record that between July 22 and July 25, a total of 69 FIRs were registered across the State and 500 arrests made; that, in compliance with the Court’s directions, 222 student protesters with no criminal antecedents were released on bail; and that 75 children in conflict with law were released by the Juvenile Justice Board.
READ MORE: Rahul Gandhi Assets Case: Supreme Court Halts Allahabad HC Proceedings, Stops CBI Report
Background
The affidavit forms part of the batch of petitions before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, arising from the policing of the student agitation over examination paper leaks in July. The AK-47 allegation had entered the proceedings directly: at an earlier hearing, counsel for a petitioner told the Court that an “AK-47 [was] used yesterday” during a bandh in Siwan, prompting the Court to seek the State’s response.
Through the hearings, the Court has observed that the right to peaceful protest is guaranteed and that police excesses cannot be justified merely because an agitation is under way, while stressing that the life of every individual, including police personnel, matters. It has indicated that it is weighing whether to constitute a Special Investigation Team or a committee headed by a retired judge to examine the allegations, and has signalled that it may lay down a pan-India protocol on the use of force during protests. The Bihar affidavit, like the Delhi Police affidavit filed alongside it, now places the State’s account before the Court — an account that will be tested against the petitioners’ allegations by whatever investigative mechanism the Court chooses.
The matter remains before the Court, and nothing has been adjudicated. The State’s affidavit sets out its case; the petitioners’ allegations of excessive force remain equally untested.
