‘SC will not do anything’: Why lawyers are disillusioned by court silence on Delhi police excesses

On October 10, Delhi Police detained lawyers and other protesters during demonstrations near the Supreme Court. The detentions matter because lawyers described force, missing information, denied water and confinement in buses. They said these actions violated basic safeguards normally expected during detention.

Anna Oommen said a woman police officer pulled her hair, neck and collar before pushing her into a bus. Anne Mathew said four or five officers physically lifted and dragged them inside. The lawyers remained in a stationary bus for about 30 minutes, then were taken without being told where they were going.

The group was eventually driven 11 km to Yamuna Sports Complex and held for three hours. They were released after Supreme Court bar bodies intervened. The article also reports that about 100 lawyers, including five senior advocates, were detained, while Shaadan Farasat was violently detained despite not taking part in the protest.

Illegal detention generally means confining a person without a lawful basis, beyond permitted authority, or without following required safeguards. It matters because police power to restrict liberty must remain tied to law and accountable procedure. The article presents the lawyers’ allegations as possible violations of those safeguards.

Anne Mathew said detainees should receive a detention memo and be told where they are being taken. She also said police should provide water. Oommen and Mathew reported that none of these things happened. They were held in a bus with its windows shut, received no destination information, and had requests for drinking water denied.

The article does not give a court ruling deciding whether the detention was illegal. It reports that the Lawyers’ Association for Constitution and advocates moved the Supreme Court, seeking an independent inquiry and action against police personnel. That distinction matters: allegations require investigation, while lawful detention requires documented authority and basic protections.

The reported scale was large and involved both ordinary advocates and senior lawyers. Oommen said about 100 lawyers were detained on October 10. Five of those detainees were senior advocates in the Supreme Court, according to her account. The number shows that the police action extended beyond a small, isolated confrontation.

A group of about 20 lawyers was taken to Yamuna Sports Complex. Their bus first remained stationary for around 30 minutes. The lawyers were then driven 11 km from the Supreme Court complex and detained there for three hours. They said police did not tell them the destination during the journey.

The group was released after interventions by Supreme Court bar bodies. Separately, senior advocate Shaadan Farasat said he was grabbed, had his shirt torn and was thrown into a moving bus. The article also reports that he was not participating in the protests, making his alleged detention part of the wider concern.

The Supreme Court’s recorded response was to hold a special hearing addressing petitions against mass detentions. During that hearing, senior advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal told the bench about a former junior allegedly taken away by Delhi Police. The bench comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.

The article also reports that advocates and the Lawyers’ Association for Constitution moved the Supreme Court on October 12. They sought an independent inquiry and action against the police personnel involved. The Supreme Court Bar Association separately sought accountability for officers who detained lawyers.

However, the provided article does not report the court ordering an independent inquiry, disciplining police officers, or taking action against the Centre. It ends while describing the special hearing and says detained lawyers did not expect the court to act against police or the government. The reported response therefore remained a hearing and consideration of allegations, not a stated final remedy.

Courts are central to public confidence because they are expected to examine claims of unlawful state force. When lawyers themselves report rough treatment, missing detention information and denied water, the concern reaches beyond one protest. It raises questions about whether ordinary people can expect protection when confronting official power.

The article records a special Supreme Court hearing and several petitions. Yet Oommen said she believed the court would do nothing, calling justice “a very far-fetched term.” Mathew described the treatment of lawyers as authoritarian. These statements show how the perceived absence of a remedy can become a consequence in itself.

If allegations are not fairly examined, peaceful protesters may be discouraged from assembling or speaking publicly. Bar associations’ protests and demands for inquiries show attempts to preserve accountability. The article does not state the final outcome. Its forward implication is that credible investigation and transparent court action would be important for restoring trust.

Several mechanisms can challenge alleged police abuse. Bar associations can condemn conduct, coordinate solidarity, seek information and support affected lawyers. Independent inquiries can examine who used force, whether detention rules were followed, and whether officers should face action. Constitutional courts can hear petitions seeking protection, investigation or other remedies.

The article gives concrete examples. The Supreme Court Bar Association sought accountability from officers involved. The Bombay Bar Association demanded an impartial, time-bound inquiry. Oommen, Mathew, two other advocates and the Lawyers’ Association for Constitution moved the Supreme Court for an independent inquiry and action against police personnel.

These routes do not automatically prove misconduct or guarantee punishment. They create records and put allegations before bodies with authority to examine them. The lawyers were released after Supreme Court bar bodies intervened. The article also records a special Supreme Court hearing, showing how bar action and constitutional litigation can operate together.

In a constitutional democracy, courts are expected to act as checks because police and governments exercise coercive power. Courts can examine whether officials followed law, respected individual liberty and gave required safeguards. This role helps prevent public authority from becoming unchecked authority.

The article illustrates why that role matters. Lawyers said police pulled them into buses, withheld destination information and denied water. Farasat alleged that officers tore his shirt and threw him into a moving bus. The petitions asked the Supreme Court to order an independent inquiry and action against police personnel.

The Supreme Court held a special hearing on mass-detention petitions, but the article does not report a final accountability order. Several detained lawyers said they had little hope of court action. That loss of confidence can affect more than the litigants: it may make people fear peaceful protest and weaken faith that courts can protect constitutional freedoms.