The recent events in the heart of India’s national capital, Delhi, have cast a stark light on the contentious dynamics between state authority and democratic dissent. A mass mobilization comprising predominantly students, branded as “cockroaches” by the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, has sparked vigorous debate. This phrase, initially aimed at “unemployed youths and activists” critical of the legal system, has been embraced by young protesters in defiance. Their movement gained traction following the leak of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) questions, further fueling public outrage.
The protests, swelling over several days, have reportedly faced severe police repression, documented in numerous images and videos depicting the deployment of tear gas and baton charges. However, the Delhi Police maintains these measures were necessary, citing protestors’ breach of barricades and defiance of prohibitory orders. Yet, the narrative emerging from protesters and civil society organizations paints a picture of excessive force and punitive conduct.
In response, the Delhi High Court held a hearing, even though an obiter dictum suggested it was not inclined to be pulled into the fray. No immediate relief has been offered, with further deliberation postponed to September 2026. Meanwhile, Justice Surya Kant has refrained from urgently addressing the Supreme Court on the matter, deeming it a “waste of time,” a reflection of the judiciary’s current stance towards protest-related interventions.
The legal framework governing police conduct in India, as laid out in precedents like Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, emphasizes restraint and the non-arbitrary exercise of power. The practice of using force, particularly in crowd control situations, should adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality, as also articulated in the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Code of Conduct and the National Crime Investigation Bureau’s directives.
The reports from Delhi’s streets, however, suggest a deviation from these standards. Allegations include the deployment of police officers in plain clothes without proper identification, contravening internal protocols that require proper uniform and identification badges during duty. Such claims have sparked substantial backlash, prompting a directive from Delhi Police mandating correct attire during operations.
A major point of contention is the use of lathis, which have historically served as a powerful symbol of colonial-era control and remain deeply evocative within the context of modern policing. The Supreme Court has reiterated that while dispersal of unlawful assemblies may warrant force, the use of lathis, especially with potentially lethal adaptations like fitted nails, deepens the controversy.
Particularly troubling are the accounts of tear gas deployment, escalating ordinary policing to chemical dispersion. This echoes sentiments expressed by the Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, which underscored the importance of balancing public order with fundamental rights like liberty and dignity.
The situation also raises alarming concerns about treatment of female protesters, with reports of physical mishandling by male police officers breaching established legal safeguards. Delhi, often at the epicenter of debates on women’s safety, finds itself again scrutinized in its approach to maintaining law and order.
Ultimately, the unfolding events in Delhi pose critical questions about the very nature of democratic participation and state response. The balance between maintaining public order and protecting constitutional rights is a delicate one, with far-reaching implications. As the protests continue, the conduct of authorities must be carefully examined to determine whether these rights remain robust protections or become contingent privileges extended by the state.
The unfolding situation in Delhi is detailed further in the original dispatch by JURIST.