Hours after Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant clarified in open court that no petition had been filed in the Supreme Court over alleged police excesses during the July 20 crackdown on student protesters in Delhi, the court on Friday agreed to hear two freshly instituted petitions on the issue on Monday.
Event Context
The listing came after the CJI, earlier in the day, had strongly criticised reports suggesting that the Supreme Court had refused to entertain pleas over the July 20 police action, saying no writ petition had been filed before the court until then.
The issue surfaced when senior advocate Shoeb Alam mentioned an unrelated matter and sought an urgent hearing.
Referring to media reports claiming that the Supreme Court had declined to hear a plea on the July 20 crackdown, the CJI said the registry verified its records and found that no writ petition had been instituted.
“It has happened recently that nothing was filed and the matter was mentioned before us… I checked from the registry and not a single page has been filed in the Supreme Court,” the CJI observed.
He added that what had reached the court was only a representation. “It was one representation… sent by that Mishra or someone. How can I treat the representation as a writ petition? And people start recklessly reporting this,” the CJI, who was sitting with justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, remarked.
Expressing concern over the reportage, the CJI said: “In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter was filed, and the media is absolutely free from all responsibility, recklessly falsely reporting that the Chief Justice refused to list the matter. Till morning 10 am, not a single page has been filed.”
The observations referred to Wednesday’s proceedings, when the Supreme Court declined to entertain an oral request by advocate Narendra Mishra to take suo motu cognisance of the alleged police brutality during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP).
Mishra had relied on a letter petition addressed to the CJI and urged the court to examine videos allegedly showing police personnel assaulting protesters. The bench declined the request, observing that it was “not interested in videos” and that no petition had been filed.
Separately, the Delhi high court directed authorities to preserve CCTV footage, videography and other records relating to the police action while seeking responses from the Centre and the Delhi Police on petitions challenging the crackdown. The matter is scheduled to be heard on September 11.
The July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march, called after weeks of protests and a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, saw tens of thousands of demonstrators attempting to march towards Parliament demanding the resignation of Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan over examination paper leaks.
As protesters attempted to cross multiple barricades in central Delhi, police used tear gas and lathi-charge to disperse the crowd. Videos circulating on social media appeared to show protesters being assaulted, while Delhi Police maintained that force became necessary after demonstrators turned violent and resorted to stone-pelting. Since then, HT has also traced four people who allege security forces used pellet guns to target them.
Player Focus
The development came in the afternoon when senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned two petitions before a bench led by the CJI, saying they had now been formally filed and assigned diary numbers.
“There are two petitions dealing with the violence that took place across the country on the students’ protest,” Sankaranarayanan told the bench.
He said the petitions were not mentioned earlier because they were awaiting diary numbers. “We have diary numbers, properly constituted petitions. The states are parties,” he submitted.
The CJI responded, “Let it be listed, we will entertain.”
Urging an early hearing, Sankaranarayanan said there was continuing urgency. “This is happening on a daily basis. Police is using excessive force against children. It is just going on unabated. Some controls are necessary. The court stands between us and the police.”
The CJI directed that the petitions, including the one filed by advocate Shailesh Mani Tripathi, be listed on Monday.
