CLAT Tribe
Back to Editorials
The HinduAugust 1, 2026

Force of law: On the Delhi police

The extent and the nature of police action, which continues in Delhi against student protesters, remain a matter of grave concern for India’s democracy. The Supreme Court of India is seized of the matter , but it has done little so far to restrain the police, which appears to be acting outside of the law. To have an independent inquiry that examines the allegations being raised — as is being considered by the Court — is one thing. But an accountable police force would have swiftly acted to preserve its own honour and reputation, considering what is already available in the public domain. Its male officers in uniform appear in videos slapping a woman protester, and attempting to bring down a lathi on the private parts of a girl. The Delhi police is actively pursuing protesters who were apparently present at the protest site, using facial-recognition and other surveillance technologies, the legality of which remains dubious and controversial. Yet, it has offered no response regarding the identity of the officer seen openly assaulting a young woman at a public gathering. The Delhi police would not require any software or Court intervention to identify and hold its own personnel accountable. All it needs is professionalism and a strict adherence to the principle of the rule of law. There is also a simultaneous law-enforcement sweep against freedom of expression, both online and offline, targeting critics of the government. The police appears eager to proceed against people merely for saying something. Abusive language has indeed been used by some content creators against government functionaries. If any of that warrants police action, the applicable law should be clearly cited, and due process should be followed transparently. Instead, there are reports of arbitrary police action that appears intended more as intimidation than law enforcement, targeting protesters, their families and, in some cases, even social media platforms. At the same time, the police seem uninterested in acting against online mobs that are threatening and abusing the protesters. The Delhi police has maintained that criminals infiltrated the protests. Those involved in violence must certainly be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. The force has also not explained the circumstances under which pellets were fired at protesters . Police practices must adhere to established rules and standards, and any breach must be dealt with firmly. This is an occasion for both the Centre and the Court to underscore a basic constitutional principle: nobody, including the police, is above the law. The government should not appear to have gone back on its promises to the agitating students, who called off the protests once their demands were met. That would only entrench cynicism and deepen resentment among the youth who turned up in their thousands at Jantar Mantar. Published - August 01, 2026 12:20 am IST Read Comments Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit READ LATER SEE ALL Remove Related Topics Delhi / students / democracy / India / police / court / technology (general) / law enforcement / online / law / media / criminal

Key GK Takeaways for CLAT
  • 1Delhi's unique constitutional arrangement means police remains a Union subject even though Delhi has its own elected government, a division rooted in Article 239AA, which grants the National Capital Territory special status keeping police, public order and land under Union control. This explains why the editorial addresses the Centre rather than the Delhi government when demanding accountability for police conduct. The 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India had already clarified the limits of the Delhi government's executive power precisely in such areas.
  • 2In the absence of an international dimension, the relevant domestic policy angle concerns India's newer criminal procedure framework, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure and retains prohibitory-order provisions similar to the old Section 144 used to restrict public assembly. Critics have long argued such provisions, along with laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, are disproportionately invoked against protesters rather than those inciting or threatening them online. This tension between maintaining public order and protecting the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) recurs whenever protest policing draws scrutiny.
  • 3The unregulated use of facial-recognition technology by police raises concerns under the right to privacy recognised as intrinsic to Article 21 in the nine-judge Supreme Court bench ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, 2017. India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, does not yet have rules specifically governing law-enforcement use of biometric surveillance, leaving a regulatory gap that civil liberties groups have repeatedly flagged. Courts have increasingly been asked to examine whether such deployment without statutory backing meets the 'proportionality' test the Puttaswamy judgment laid down for any privacy infringement.
  • 4National Crime Records Bureau data has repeatedly shown that conviction rates in cases of custodial violence or police excesses in India remain below ten percent, even as thousands of such complaints are filed every year across states. Delhi has witnessed several large-scale youth-led protests in the past decade, including the 2019-20 anti-CAA agitation and the 2020-21 farmers' protests, each drawing tens of thousands of participants and repeated allegations of disproportionate policing. Such patterns underscore why student protests, though numerically smaller, attract intense scrutiny over the proportionality of force used against demonstrators.

Related from CLAT Tribe Blogs