Caught on camera: on the use of force at Jantar Mantar
The massive use of force by the Delhi Police , and unidentified people, on student protesters in the national capital clearly breached all known protocols of crowd control. After its initial reluctance, the Supreme Court of India has now agreed to hear complaints of police excesses on Monday, July 27. Meanwhile, multiple video clips that have surfaced online show personnel, both in uniform and in normal clothes, using violence with an apparent intent to harm and terrorise protesters rather than to disperse them. Some protesters have sustained pellet injurie s that the police and the authorities have yet to explain. In one video, an identifiable senior official of the Delhi Police is seen slapping a girl who was standing nearby; in another, an unidentified person in uniform with three stars is seen poking a girl from behind while she was walking away. In a third video, personnel are seen surrounding a girl, with one of them groping her while others leer and laugh. Some people not in uniform but wearing helmets are seen in video clips on social media beating protesters. Some have been caught on camera carrying sticks with long nails, while others are seen smashing vehicles. All this has happened while the protesters were, barring a stray incident or two, peaceful . Those who unleashed violence, whether authorised police personnel or vigilantes who infiltrated the student protests, need to be identified, pursued, and held accountable. The police violence against student protesters in Delhi followed a pattern. In 2020, a mob entered the JNU campus and attacked students even as the police looked away. No serious investigation or arrests followed. In 2019, personnel of the Delhi Police entered the library of Jamia Millia Islamia and beat up students during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act . The crackdown on protesters demonstrating against recurring paper leaks in various examinations marked a new low in this trend. There is no evidence that the protesters, who included teenagers, families with toddlers, and women, were involved in large-scale violence that warranted the level of police force used. It is heartening that the Chief Justice of India has clarified that his earlier reluctance to hear the complaints was only technical in nature and that the Court is open to those who seek justice. The Court now has before it two petitions documenting the nature and extent of the force used by the police. There must be a thorough investigation to find out exactly who was involved and whether the use of force was authorised and proportionate. There must be special attention paid to complaints of assaults of a sexual nature and to those targeting women and children. Those found guilt must face the full force of the law. Published - July 25, 2026 12:20 am IST Read Comments Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit READ LATER SEE ALL Remove Related Topics Delhi / police / court / students / Citizenship Amendment Act / children / test/examination / entrance examination / investigation / sexual assault
- 1The incident underscores the constitutional obligation of the state to protect citizens' right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b), while Article 21 guarantees protection from arbitrary state violence. When police use disproportionate force against unarmed protesters, including women and children, it raises separation-of-powers concerns, since judicial oversight becomes the primary check on executive excess. The Supreme Court's willingness to hear such petitions reflects its constitutional role as guardian of fundamental rights against overreach by law enforcement.
- 2Recurring incidents of police violence against student protesters, from Jamia Millia Islamia in 2019 to JNU in 2020 and now Jantar Mantar, reveal a persistent institutional failure to hold personnel accountable through independent inquiry. Policy responses have historically relied on committees or magisterial inquiries that rarely result in prosecutions. Sustained reform would require binding protocols on crowd control, mandatory body cameras, and time-bound disciplinary action, none of which currently exist as enforceable national standards.
- 3Victims of custodial or crowd-control violence in India can seek redress through public law compensation, a doctrine established in Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa (1993), where the Supreme Court held the state liable for violations of Article 21 independent of ordinary tort law. Additionally, the National Human Rights Commission and state police complaints authorities, mandated after Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006), are meant to provide independent oversight, though effectiveness varies across states.
- 4The protests originated from concerns over recurring examination paper leaks affecting students competing for limited seats in professional courses; NEET-UG alone saw over twenty-three lakh candidates in a recent year, making integrity of the examination system a matter of significant public stake. When enforcement responses to peaceful dissent turn violent, it risks deterring civic participation among young citizens exactly when large-scale education and employment reforms are under active discussion in Parliament.