Delhi Police Denies Excessive Force Against Student Protesters In Supreme Court Counter Affidavi
Delhi Police submitted a comprehensive counter affidavit before the Supreme Court denying allegations of excessive force against student demonstrators who gathered at Jantar Mantar and attempted to march toward Parliament. In the affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma, law enforcement officials defended their actions, stating that police personnel acted with utmost restraint and resorted only to graded, minimum force after sections of the crowd turned violent and repeatedly breached security barricades.
The submission came in response to a batch of petitions seeking a court monitored investigation into alleged police excesses during the widespread youth demonstrations over national exam paper leaks. Addressing the legality of the assembly, the police highlighted that no regulatory permission had been granted for a march toward Parliament. Consequently, police argued that the attempt to move past designated protest limits transformed the gathering into an unlawful assembly, making police intervention necessary to maintain public order around high security zones.
Detailing the scale of the operation, law enforcement noted that approximately five thousand police officers were tasked with managing a massive crowd exceeding thirty thousand individuals spread across multiple areas. The affidavit stated that the situation deteriorated significantly when groups of agitators targeted isolated police officers, pulled off protective gear, and pushed personnel onto stone pavements. Clashes resulted in injuries to more than two hundred forty uniformed personnel as well as around two hundred protesters.
The police affidavit also addressed specific allegations regarding weapons and surveillance technologies raised by the petitioners. Rejection was issued against claims that officers deployed nail-studded batons, clarifying that visual evidence showed a solitary stick carrying a national flag in the hands of a demonstrator rather than police equipment. Regarding facial recognition software, authorities maintained that the system was utilized as a targeted policing tool to identify individuals with existing serious criminal antecedents rather than to conduct indiscriminate surveillance on peaceful students.