'How is this a publicity petition?' Delhi High Court questions Centre in CJP protest case

Hearing multiple petitions, a bench led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya questioned the Centre's claim that the pleas were merely filed for publicity.

"How can you say this is a publicity petition?" the Chief Justice asked Additional Solicitor General S. Raju, who was appearing for the Delhi Police and the Centre.

Petitioners allege 'brutality', assault on women

Senior Advocates N. Hariharan and Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the protesters were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly when they were met with disproportionate police force.

Hariharan alleged that women protesters were assaulted, including being struck on their private parts, while claiming that some police personnel carried batons fitted with nails and were not wearing identification badges.

"Something that followed was unimaginable. Brutality to the largest measure possible has been used," he told the court, adding that over 90 protesters had been injured.

Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing another petitioner, alleged that tear gas was used despite Supreme Court guidelines treating it as a measure of last resort.

He also claimed to have reviewed over 110 videos that purportedly showed police personnel, some in plain clothes, assaulting protesters.

The petitioners further alleged that videos showed vehicles carrying stones parked near the protest site before the demonstration began, suggesting an attempt to later blame protesters for violence.

Centre rejects allegations, calls pleas 'publicity seeking'

Opposing the petitions, ASG Raju argued that the protesters were not entirely peaceful and that social media clips relied upon by the petitioners could not be accepted at face value.

He maintained that several videos showed protesters pelting stones and injuring police personnel, adding that political groups had infiltrated the demonstration.

Describing the litigation as "publicity seeking", Raju argued that individuals claiming assault should file complaints before magistrate courts instead of approaching the High Court through public interest petitions.

High Court questions government's stand

The bench, however, questioned the Centre's argument that every injured protester should individually lodge an FIR.

"If this was an unlawful assembly, there is a procedure to deal with it. If these issues are being raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should go and lodge an FIR?" the Chief Justice observed.

The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the allegations at this stage but said they warranted a formal response from the authorities.

Evidence to be preserved

Issuing notices to the Delhi Police and the Centre, the High Court granted them four weeks to file their replies.

Pending further proceedings, the bench directed that all relevant records, including CCTV footage and any videography related to the incident, be preserved in accordance with the police's standard operating procedures.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 11.