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
- 1Police in the National Capital Territory function under the Union Home Ministry rather than the Delhi government, given Delhi's unique constitutional status, which creates layered accountability questions whenever excesses are alleged. Independent oversight mechanisms such as the National Human Rights Commission are often invoked after such incidents, though their recommendations are not legally binding on the police. This episode shows how institutional design, not intent alone, can hamper timely accountability for state violence.
- 2Crowd-control protocols in India are meant to follow a graded-response principle, using verbal warnings and lathi charges before escalating to tear gas or pellet guns, a standard the Supreme Court has referenced in cases concerning pellet gun use in Jammu and Kashmir. The Bureau of Police Research and Development has issued model standing orders on the use of force, though implementation varies widely across states. Repeated allegations of excessive force at student protests since 2019 suggest that written protocols alone do not guarantee restraint on the ground.
- 3The Supreme Court's decision to hear these petitions parallels its reasoning in Anuradha Bhasin versus Union of India, 2020, which held that restrictions on fundamental rights, including assembly and movement, must meet tests of necessity and proportionality. Allegations of sexual assault during crowd control can attract provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code and covers offences of assault and outraging a woman's modesty. Genuine accountability typically depends on whether an independent investigation, rather than an internal departmental inquiry, is ordered by the Court.
- 4The 2019 Jamia Millia Islamia incident during the Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests and the 2020 Jawaharlal Nehru University campus attack are both widely documented episodes where oversight inquiries did not result in prosecutions of identified personnel, a pattern the editorial says is repeating. Smartphone-based video documentation, now central to these complaints, reflects the growing global role of decentralised evidence in holding state actors accountable over the past decade. The presence of families with toddlers and women among the protesters undercuts any claim that the gathering posed a security threat justifying heavy force.