Jantar Mantar July protests: Supreme Court asks enquiry panel to submit reports in a month on police crackdown, alleged brutality

The Supreme Court ordered the high-powered enquiry committee to begin submitting fact-finding reports on alleged police excesses during the July Jantar Mantar protests. The reports must be submitted within one month. The direction came after the committee reported that its complaints portal became operational on October 14.

The court specifically asked for progress on two priority subjects: alleged targeted violence, harassment and molestation of women protesters, and serious harm or injuries allegedly caused by police and security personnel. The second issue also includes whether interim compensation may be needed.

The case is listed again for December 2. By then, the committee may submit an interim report on those priority issues. The court also said the panel should not wait indefinitely for complaints and may examine material submitted by petitioners on victims’ behalf.

The high-powered enquiry committee, or HPEC, is a court-appointed five-member panel formed in August. It is chaired by former Supreme Court judge, justice (retd) R Subhash Reddy. Its role is to examine complaints and other material about alleged police excesses and violence during the Cockroach Janata Party-led July protests at Jantar Mantar.

The committee is not simply collecting complaints. The court asked it to prepare fact-finding reports and action-taken reports covering issues identified in earlier orders. Its work includes examining claims involving protesters, police personnel and security forces.

The inquiry matters because the Supreme Court is using the panel to establish what happened before deciding how the material should be handled. The portal received only a few complaints after opening on October 14, but the court said petitioners could submit existing petitions and video clips for consideration.

The HPEC is a five-member committee. The Supreme Court has singled out two priority issues for early reporting: alleged violence and harassment against women protesters, and grievous harm or injuries allegedly caused by police and security personnel. These issues may receive an interim report first.

The court’s August 18 order identified 12 issues for the committee’s wider examination. The panel had not yet begun preparing action-taken reports on those 12 issues when the matter was heard. This creates a distinction between the urgent subjects and the broader inquiry.

The complaints portal became operational on October 14, but the committee told the court that it had received only a few complaints. No complainant had appeared in person or contacted the committee by email. The court nevertheless said the panel could consider material submitted by petitioners.

The Supreme Court wants the committee to examine the most serious alleged harms first. One priority issue involves targeted violence, harassment and molestation of women protesters during the July demonstrations. These allegations raise specific concerns about the treatment of women at the protest site.

The second priority issue concerns grievous harm and injuries allegedly caused to protesters by police and security personnel. The court also linked this issue to the possible need for interim compensation. These are the subjects on which the committee may submit an interim report.

The court directed the committee to start submitting fact-finding reports within a month. It also said the panel should examine information from petitioners, including petitions and video clips, even when victims do not file complaints personally. The committee’s portal had received only a few complaints.

If the committee finds evidence of police or security-force excesses, it will record its conclusions in fact-finding reports for the Supreme Court. The reports could help the court assess allegations involving violence, harassment, injuries and other issues identified in its orders.

However, the court clarified that its August 18 order is not a mandate to start disciplinary proceedings. It only preserved the power of police authorities and security forces to take administrative or disciplinary action against officers found to have violated conduct rules.

This means a finding by the committee does not automatically punish an officer. Police authorities may decide whether to begin departmental action under their own powers. Meanwhile, the court expects the committee to report on the evidence, beginning with the two priority issues, and may share relevant report contents unless confidentiality is exceptionally necessary.

The Supreme Court said complainants do not have to disclose victims’ identities when approaching the committee. That allows petitioners to represent victims who may be unwilling or unable to contact the HPEC directly. It also protects the inquiry from depending only on personal appearances.

The court said petitioners could share material already filed before it, including copies of petitions and video clips attached to them. This gives the committee access to evidence already placed on the judicial record while avoiding a requirement that every victim submit a separate complaint.

The approach also addresses the portal’s slow start. The portal opened on October 14, but only a few complaints had arrived, with no complainant appearing in person or emailing the panel. The court said the committee should examine all information submitted by parties and should not wait indefinitely.