CJP’s history of mob violence can’t be ignored, cops tell Supreme Court

Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that past conduct mattered because permission decisions are based partly on the risks a proposed gathering may create. The commissioner argued that CJP had recently ignored conditions, disrupted central Delhi and been linked by police to confrontations and damage. This formed the basis for treating the October 10 march differently from an ordinary peaceful demonstration.

The police pointed to the July 20 march, which they called unauthorised and unlawful. They also cited demonstrations on October 6, 7 and 8, alleging that they blocked roads for hours, injured more than a dozen police personnel and included harassment of officers. Police communications, public statements, photographs and videos were also cited.

The affidavit therefore presented the October 10 restrictions as preventive, not isolated. Police said they had to weigh protest rights against protecting people, property and movement near sensitive national institutions. CJP’s earlier conduct was central to that risk assessment, although the Supreme Court’s response to the police justification is not provided here.

An unlawful assembly generally means a group gathered with a legally prohibited purpose, or one whose conduct falls within statutory rules defining an unlawful gathering. The label matters because authorities may use it to justify dispersal or other preventive action. It does not automatically mean every person present committed violence; the circumstances and individual conduct remain important.

In this case, police described the July 20 CJP march over the NEET-UG paper leak as “unauthorised, unlawful and illegal.” They said CJP had earlier promised that a protest would remain peaceful, stay below 1,000 participants and not become a march toward Parliament without permission. Police alleged that this undertaking was breached.

That description became part of the justification for restricting the October 10 mobilisation. The affidavit treated the July event as evidence that CJP might again disregard demonstration conditions. The article does not report a final judicial finding that the July march was unlawful, so the police characterization remains an allegation presented in the contempt proceedings.

According to the affidavit, CJP’s July 20 march concerned the NEET-UG paper leak and was not authorised. Police said participants formed an unlawful assembly and alleged that the organisation had broken an earlier undertaking limiting the gathering and barring a Parliament march without permission. The affidavit relied on photographs, videos and other material when describing the police concerns.

Police then listed three October events. On October 6, protesters marched to the Election Commission of India. On October 7, they marched from Janpath to Jantar Mantar. On October 8, another gathering moved from Connaught Place’s Outer Circle toward Rajghat. Police said these actions choked central Delhi for hours and left commuters stranded.

The commissioner further alleged that some participants became aggressive, physically harassed police personnel and misbehaved with women officers. More than a dozen police personnel were said to have been injured. These events, alongside the July march, were presented as the background for denying permission to the October 10 mobilisation.

The police affidavit said more than a dozen police personnel were injured during the demonstrations. It did not provide an exact number or describe the severity of each injury. The commissioner also alleged that some participants physically harassed police personnel and misbehaved with women officers, presenting the injuries as part of a wider public-order concern.

Traffic disruption was another major claim. Police said the October 6, 7 and 8 gatherings choked central Delhi for hours. The cited routes included the Election Commission of India, Janpath, Jantar Mantar, Connaught Place and Rajghat. These locations are central to the police account of how the demonstrations affected movement through the capital.

According to the affidavit, students and other commuters were stranded in traffic, and some missed trains and flights. The article does not quantify the number of stranded people, the delays or the injuries’ seriousness. Those limitations matter because the reported scale is based on police allegations submitted to the Supreme Court, not a final fact-finding conclusion described here.

Contempt proceedings are court processes used to examine alleged disobedience of a court order or interference with the administration of justice. They give the affected authority a chance to respond before the court decides whether contempt occurred. A notice is not itself a final finding of guilt; it starts or advances that examination.

Here, the Supreme Court issued contempt notices over alleged non-compliance with its directions on regulating public transport during the protest. The article does not reproduce those directions or specify the precise breach. It says the notices concerned restrictions imposed around the protest and the handling of public transport.

Senior officers filed responses, including the Delhi Police commissioner’s counter-affidavit. Police asked the court to discharge the notice, arguing that their actions were necessary to prevent disruption, violence and damage to people and property. The affidavit defended denying permission for October 10 and detaining protesters as proportionate measures. The article does not state the Supreme Court’s final ruling.

Denying a protest permit can protect public safety when authorities have credible reasons to expect violence, obstruction or damage. It can keep roads open and reduce risks to commuters, officers and property. But a broad or poorly justified denial can weaken the right to protest, silence criticism and push demonstrations into less predictable settings. The balance depends on necessity, evidence and proportionality.

Brief preventive detention may stop particular people from joining a confrontation or violating stated conditions. In this case, police described detention and permission denial as proportionate to maintaining law and order. They cited alleged injuries, traffic disruption, property risks and CJP’s past conduct. The article does not state how many people were detained or for how long.

The longer-term effect depends on oversight and the court’s assessment. Clear reasons, limited duration and review can reduce harm to protest rights. In contrast, treating every participant as dangerous could increase distrust and invite further legal challenge. Here, the Supreme Court’s contempt proceedings provide a forum for examining the authorities’ compliance and justification.

Under Article 19(1)(b) of India’s Constitution, citizens have a right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on that right in the interests of public order, sovereignty and integrity of India. This framework protects protest while recognising that demonstrations cannot lawfully justify violence, serious obstruction or damage to people and property. This constitutional explanation uses established law beyond the article’s text.

The article illustrates that balance through the police affidavit. Delhi Police cited CJP’s alleged breach of an undertaking, the unauthorised July 20 march, injuries to more than a dozen officers and hours of traffic disruption on October 6, 7 and 8. The commissioner said restrictions and preventive detention were proportionate to preventing harm.

The key question is whether the evidence supports the specific restriction imposed. Authorities should distinguish peaceful participants from violent conduct and use the least restrictive effective measure. Courts can review that reasoning, including through the contempt proceedings described here. The article does not report the Supreme Court’s final ruling on whether the restrictions met that standard.