‘Cannot permit breach of public order’: Delhi Police chief tells Supreme Court on CJP protest crackdown

The affidavit is part of the responses filed by senior officers after the Supreme Court issued contempt notices over restrictions imposed around the protest.

Delhi Police commissioner Anurag Kumar has defended the denial of permission for the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)’s October 10 march and the preventive detention of protesters as “proportionate to the legitimate objective of maintaining law and order and preventing harm to persons and property”, asserting that the police administration could not have allowed breach of public order by an organisation with a recent history of mob violence, destruction of properties and incidents causing injuries to several people.

The affidavit has relied on communications and public statements attributed to CJP, including calls issued in the days leading up to October 10. (ANI)

In a counter-affidavit filed in response to contempt proceedings over alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions on regulating public transport during the protest, the police commissioner described the July 20 march by CJP as “unauthorised, unlawful and illegal”. The police argued that those participating in the previous march were part of an unlawful assembly, seeking to justify the action taken against the mobilisation on October 10.

Cops cite CJP past conduct

The affidavit has relied on communications and public statements attributed to CJP, including calls issued in the days leading up to October 10, to argue that the proposed mobilisation posed a law-and-order challenge. It has also cited material relating to an earlier “Chalo Sansad” march held on July 20 as part of its account of the organisation’s background and past conduct.

The July 20 event is distinct from the October 10 mobilisation that was met with restrictions.

The commissioner sought to justify the restrictions by citing what he describes as the CJP’s repeated disregard of police directions and the conditions imposed for public demonstrations. The affidavit says the organisation had given a written undertaking for an earlier protest in June, including assurances that the gathering would remain peaceful, would not exceed 1,000 participants and would not turn into a march towards Parliament without prior permission.

How authorities justified the crackdown

The police alleged the undertaking was subsequently breached and that the organisation later mobilised people for an unauthorised march towards Parliament on July 20. These allegations led to the police’s decision to deny permission for the October 10 mobilisation, according to the affidavit.

The commissioner also relied on mobilisations on October 6, 7, and 8, alleging they created serious public-order problems in central Delhi. According to the affidavit, these included a march to the Election Commission office, a march from Janpath to Jantar Mantar, and another from Connaught Place towards Rajghat. The police claimed these gatherings choked central Delhi for hours, leaving commuters stranded.

The commissioner alleged some participants turned aggressive, physically harassing police personnel and misbehaving with women officers. More than a dozen police personnel were injured, the affidavit said.

‘Can’t permit any breach of public order’

The commissioner invoked the distinctive security requirements for the national capital, pointing to the presence of Parliament, the Supreme Court, Rashtrapati Bhawan, diplomatic missions and other sensitive institutions. He argued that policing in Delhi required a careful balance between the right to protest and the need to protect public and private property, prevent injury and preserve the everyday movement of residents.

“No police administration can permit any breach of public order in the national capital, particularly when a call is given by an organisation with a recent history of mob violence, destruction of public and private property, and incidents resulting in injuries to several individuals,” the affidavit stated.

The affidavit contended the July 20 gathering involved attacks on police personnel, claiming more than 240 officers were injured.

On the detentions on October 10, the commissioner said the measures were based on intelligence inputs and an assessment of the prevailing, changing situation. The affidavit said the police invoked Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, a provision concerning the removal of persons who resist, refuse or disregard lawful directions, at locations where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were in force.

The commissioner also disputed any suggestion that those removed were subjected to prolonged detention. According to the affidavit, the detainees were released within a few hours; they were not lodged in police lock-ups or jails, were provided food and allowed to leave once the circumstances necessitating their removal had ceased.

Home secretary apologises, defends internet shutdown

Union home secretary Govind Mohan has tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” before the court, while denying that there was any willful or deliberate non-compliance with its directions. His affidavit defended the suspension of cellular internet services as a proportionate measure to prevent the spread of rumours and maintain public order on October 10.

The suspension was imposed from 10pm on October 9 until 10pm on October 10 within a four-kilometre radius of Raisina Hill, the affidavit said, adding that wi-fi and broadband services were not suspended. Mohan has sought discharge of the contempt notice and modification of the Supreme Court’s October 11 order to permit internet suspensions in situations of necessity, subject to the law and applicable safeguards.

The affidavit also relied on the 2018 judgment in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs Union of India, which dealt with regulating protests and balancing the right to demonstrate with public order.