The Delhi Police told the Supreme Court it used no excessive force against student protesters on July 20, calling the Parliament march an illegal act by an unlawful assembly.
New Delhi: The Delhi Police has told the Supreme Court that it did not use excessive force against the students who protested at Jantar Mantar on July 20, asserting that the proposed march towards Parliament was an illegal act by an unlawful assembly and that the force it deployed was graded and lawful — a counter-affidavit that squarely contests the allegations of police brutality now before the Court [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (Crl.) 280/2026].
The affidavit, filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma as a common reply in four connected petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation into the alleged excesses, comes as the matter is listed before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. It represents the police’s formal answer to the petitions — the affidavit the Court had earlier directed it to file — and mirrors a similar denial filed by the Bihar Police in the connected proceedings.
The police’s account: ‘graded force’ against an out-of-control crowd
According to the affidavit, the protest ceased to be peaceful once sections of the crowd allegedly breached multiple layers of barricades and attempted to move towards Parliament. The police stated that more than 30,000 protesters were present around Jantar Mantar on July 20, spread across three kilometres, and that about 5,000 police personnel were deployed to manage them.
The police said that as the crowd went completely out of control, a struggle ensued in which both protesters and police were injured — putting the figure at more than 240 uniformed personnel and around 200 members of the public. It contended that the allegation of excessive force could not be sustained given the sheer number of protesters at different spots, which, it alleged, included anti-social elements and history-sheeters who had infiltrated the protest.
READ MORE: Ankit Sharma Murder: Delhi Police To Appeal Acquittal Of Six; HC Issues Notice
‘The march was illegal’
A central plank of the affidavit is the legal character of the gathering. Since no permission had been granted for the march to Parliament, the police contended, the gathering was an illegal one and the attempt to move towards Parliament was an illegal act by an unlawful assembly. On that footing, it argued, the steps taken to contain the crowd were lawful.
The police also attacked the evidentiary basis of the petitions, submitting that they relied on selective photographs, incomplete video clips, and unverified media and social-media reports that had not been independently verified, and which, it said, painted a one-sided picture that did not reflect the lawful actions of its officers.
The ‘lathi with nails’ allegation answered
Responding to a specific and widely-circulated allegation that police had used lathis fitted with nails, the affidavit asserted that the videos showed a solitary such incident — and that the implement was in the hands of a protester, not the police. It went further, contending that the object was not a lathi at all but a stick to which a National Flag was attached. Lathis, it maintained, are permissible gear, and the officials had only been attempting to contain the crowd as groups of protesters began attacking them unprovoked.
The police alleged that there was video of large groups of protesters targeting lone officers “in a mob lynching fashion” — pulling off their protective gear, dragging them, and pushing them onto stone pavements — and said it had been constrained to use force only after the barricades were breached and violence began.
On plainclothes personnel and facial recognition
The affidavit addressed two further allegations that go to civil-liberties concerns raised by the petitioners.
On the deployment of officers in plain clothes carrying lathis — the “spotters” seen in videos — the police said this was a crowd-control measure shown out of context. Owing to the urgency of the situation, it said, spotters from the Special Branch, Special Cell, Crime Branch and local police had strategically merged into the crowd, a tactic it described as neither illegal nor unusual, and one adopted at large public gatherings on occasions such as Independence Day and Republic Day.
On the use of facial recognition software at the protest site, the police maintained it was a proportionate policing measure. The affidavit stated that the software does not automatically capture the profile of every individual present, nor is it deployed for indiscriminate surveillance or the collection of personal information of peaceful protesters unless a person has a previous criminal record. No action, it said, is taken solely on the basis of a facial-recognition match — a field verification is carried out to confirm the person’s presence — and the software captures only those with a past record for serious offences, not petty matters such as traffic challans.
The criminal antecedents claim
The police told the Court that about 2,873 persons associated with the events had criminal charges against them, including for offences such as murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rape and under the POCSO Act, and that these would be investigated by the Special Investigation Team constituted by the Delhi Commissioner. It added that the question of whether the force used was excessive could be examined by the committee the Court has proposed to set up, and that the Delhi Police would cooperate with it.
Background: the litigation so far
The affidavit is the police’s response in a batch of petitions arising from the policing of the student agitation that culminated in the July 20 march. The protests, led by the Cockroach Janta Party against examination paper leaks, had demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan — a demand met when he resigned on July 25, after which the Jantar Mantar protest was called off.
The litigation over how the protests were policed, however, has continued. Through late July and August, a Bench led by the Chief Justice has heard the matter on several occasions, observing 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. The Court has indicated it is weighing whether to constitute a Special Investigation Team or a committee headed by a retired judge to examine the allegations, has clarified that States may withdraw FIRs against students without grave antecedents, and has signalled that it may lay down a pan-India protocol governing the use of force — including pellet guns — during protests. It was in that context that it directed the police to file the affidavit now on record.
With the police having denied wrongdoing and the petitioners alleging serious excesses, the Court is now seized of two sharply opposed accounts of the same events — a conflict that the investigative mechanism it is set to choose will be tasked with resolving. The matter remains before the Court, and no findings have been recorded; the affidavit sets out the police’s case, which, like the petitioners’ allegations, is yet to be tested.
CASE: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (Crl.) 280/2026