Petitions in Supreme Court allege police excesses during Delhi CEC protests

The petitions concern police action during protests in Delhi on October 10, 11 and 12. Detainees and witnesses allege physical assault, abuse, illegal detention and denial of basic safeguards. They say officers dragged, slapped and beat people, while some women reported sexual assault. The complaints matter because they raise questions about lawful arrest, equal treatment and the right to protest peacefully.

The Lawyers Association for Constitution asked the Supreme Court to order an independent inquiry. Petitioners also seek preservation of CCTV footage and body-camera recordings. They want phones and other belongings returned. They allege that some detainees were not told why they were held, denied lawyers, or detained where Section 163 of the BNSS had not been promulgated.

The allegations include injuries, bruises and a dislocated shoulder. Advocate Fidel Tom was detained while trying to provide legal aid and was allegedly denied lawyers and medical attention. At least 15 petitions have been filed, and responses from citizens were still arriving when the report was published.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed review of electoral rolls. It is intended to check voter-list entries and update records, including identifying eligible voters and correcting or removing inaccurate entries. The article says protesters in Delhi were opposing SIR and demanding the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation. It does not explain the specific features of this revision or the protesters’ detailed reasons.

The central concern in any electoral-roll revision is whether eligible people remain included and whether changes are made fairly and transparently. A review can involve verification of voter information and objections to entries. If people fear wrongful deletion, unequal treatment or inadequate notice, they may protest. Those broader concerns are established context, not details provided by this article.

The report focuses mainly on what happened during the protests, rather than the policy dispute behind SIR. It records allegations of police excesses, detention and restrictions around Janpath and Kartavya Path. The petitions ask the Supreme Court to examine police conduct, while the article does not state what decision was made about SIR.

The reported legal response is broad. At least 15 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court concerning alleged police assaults on protesters. The Lawyers Association for Constitution filed one petition based initially on responses from at least 37 citizens. The Association said more responses were arriving each day, so the article does not provide a final number of individual petitioners.

The people identified as petitioners or complainants include citizens, advocates, women, minors and journalists. The allegations cover physical assault, abuse, illegal detention, denial of lawyers and seizure of phones. Passers-by engaged in ordinary daily activities were also allegedly taken into custody. Women journalists separately reported dragging, confinement and manhandling while working.

Specific examples include advocate Fidel Tom, who was detained while trying to provide legal aid, and a female protester near Safdarjung Flyover who reported sexual assault. The Network of Women in Media filed another petition. These accounts form the basis for requests for an independent inquiry and preservation of evidence.

The alleged violations involve several legal protections. Petitioners say detainees were not told the grounds for detention, family members were not informed, and many people were denied access to legal counsel. They also allege that women and juveniles were detained in circumstances raising additional concerns. The petition claims police treated people differently based on appearance or perceived identity, contrary to Articles 14 and 15.

The article also refers to the right to protest peacefully and to Supreme Court rules governing arrest and detention. Petitioners argue that force against peaceful protesters was unjustified. They further allege that some people were detained where Section 163 of the BNSS had not been promulgated. These claims, if established, could indicate failures to follow required safeguards.

The reported restrictions extended beyond arrests. Internet services were suspended, trains cancelled, buses diverted, roads closed and metro stations shut around Janpath and Kartavya Path. The petitions ask the Court to examine these actions alongside alleged assaults, missing detention information and denial of legal access.

Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is a legal provision for urgent situations involving an apprehended danger, nuisance or disturbance of public tranquillity. It allows an authorised magistrate to issue written directions requiring people to stop or avoid certain acts. Such orders may regulate gatherings or movement when authorities identify a specific public-order risk.

In practice, an order under Section 163 can limit public assemblies or impose conditions on protests. It does not automatically make every detention lawful. Authorities must rely on a valid order, apply it within its scope and follow other arrest and detention safeguards. The exact restrictions depend on the order’s wording and circumstances.

The article says several people were detained in areas where Section 163 had not been promulgated. Petitioners use that claim to challenge the legal basis for those detentions. The report does not provide the text, geographic extent or duration of any Section 163 order issued elsewhere.

If the Supreme Court orders an independent inquiry, investigators could collect statements, medical records, detention records and available recordings. They could examine whether police used unjustified force, detained people unlawfully, denied lawyers or failed to protect detainees. An independent process matters because it can assess complaints separately from the officers whose conduct is challenged.

Preserving CCTV and body-camera footage could prevent important evidence from being lost or overwritten. The recordings might clarify where people were detained, how force was used, whether officers were identifiable and what happened during arrests. If the Court finds police excesses, it could issue directions or order further legal steps. The article does not specify the remedies the petitioners seek beyond the listed requests.

Possible consequences could include accountability for responsible personnel, relief for injured or unlawfully detained people, and stronger compliance with arrest safeguards. The Court might also require records to be maintained or direct authorities to follow clearer procedures. These are potential implications, not outcomes reported in the article.

The Supreme Court has authority to hear claims that state officials violated fundamental rights. Police are state authorities, so allegations of unlawful detention, assault, unequal treatment or interference with peaceful expression can raise constitutional questions. The petitions specifically invoke Articles 14 and 15 and refer to the Court’s protection of peaceful protest and rules on arrest and detention.

The Court can examine records, hear affected people and require authorities to respond. It may issue directions to protect constitutional rights while a case is considered. Depending on the case, it can order evidence preserved, seek an inquiry or grant appropriate relief. This power allows the Court to review whether police action followed law and constitutional safeguards.

That authority does not mean every allegation is automatically proved. The Court would need to assess evidence, including medical records, witness accounts, detention documents and recordings if preserved. The article reports that at least 15 petitions have been filed, but it does not report any final judicial finding or order.