Perhaps most disturbing is the court’s order directing the registration of an FIR against the former SHO of Jyoti Nagar police station for his alleged role in the custodial torture of riot victims. A widely circulated video had already shown police officers beating Muslim men and forcing them to chant nationalistic and religious slogans, yet no action was taken until judicial intervention. The complainant, Mohd. Wasim, recounted being brutally assaulted, thrown onto a pile of injured men, and later coerced into signing false statements. The court’s findings make it clear that the police did not just fail to protect riot victims; they actively targeted them. These three rulings, taken together, expose a grim reality—law enforcement in Delhi was not just ineffective during the riots, but in many cases, became complicit in deepening the communal divide. While the courts have intervened, these judgments also serve as a reminder of how easily institutions can be weaponised when accountability is absent.

1. The shielding of BJP MLA Kapil Mishra: Delhi Police’s selective investigation

One of the most critical observations made by the court came in the case involving BJP leader Kapil Mishra, whose incendiary speech on February 23, 2020, is widely believed to have instigated violence in North-East Delhi. The complainant, Mohd. Wasim, alleged that he saw Mishra leading an unlawful assembly and firing gunshots at protestors. However, despite these serious allegations, the police’s Action Taken Report (ATR) was completely silent on Mishra’s role. Through his order issued on January 18, 2025, Judicial Magistrate Udbhav Kumar Jain of the Karkardooma Court pointed out that the investigating officer (IO) had either deliberately avoided probing Mishra’s involvement or actively sought to cover it up. This observation reinforces the perception that Delhi Police has, at times, acted as a shield for politically connected individuals rather than as an impartial law enforcement body.

In the order, the Magistrate observed, “it seems that the IO was more concerned about the police officials and either he failed to make inquiry against the alleged accused no.3 (Kapil Mishra), or he tried to cover up the allegations against the said accused. The ATR is completely silent qua him (Mishra).”

“The principle behind Section 153A IPC is to preserve religious/communal harmony and it is the duty of every citizen that while he enjoys his right to express himself, he preserves religious harmony. This indeed is the positive aspect of Secularism,” the judge said in its order.

The court further stressed that public figures like Mishra bear a higher responsibility to act within the constitutional framework and not make statements that disrupt communal harmony. This order underscores how the police failed in their duty to investigate a politician accused of inciting violence while aggressively pursuing cases against others.

“The alleged accused no.3 (Kapil Mishra) is in public eyes and is prone to more scrutiny; such persons in the society direct the course/mood of the public at large and thus, responsible behaviour within the ambit of the Constitution of India is expected from such persons,” the Court said.

The order may be read here.

2. Dubious prosecutions: Acquittal of Six Accused Due to Flimsy Evidence

In another case, on February 3, 2025, the Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala acquitted six individuals accused of being part of a riotous mob that engaged in arson and destruction in Gokalpuri. The court found serious lapses in the prosecution’s case, particularly the unreliable testimonies of two police witnesses, Assistant Sub-Inspectors Vanvir and Jahangir. The officers claimed to have identified the accused in videos but were only examined in December 2020—almost ten months after the riots. The court noted that if the officers had already known the accused, as they claimed, there was no need for them to identify them in videos later. Additionally, one of them failed to even recognise three accused individuals in court.

“If they knew the names of the accused persons and if they had seen these persons in the mob of rioters, then there was no need and occasion for them to identify the accused persons in any video,” it said.

This case illustrates how the Delhi Police sought to frame individuals using questionable evidence while failing to investigate more pressing allegations against political figures and police personnel. The delay in examining key witnesses and the lack of credible identification further point to the possibility of wrongful arrests and politically motivated prosecutions.

“This delay in examining these two police officials, who were posted in the same police station, certainly casts doubt over the veracity of the prosecution’s case. The investigating officer did not tender any reason for such delay in recording the statement of these witnesses,” the Court said, as per a report in Bar&Bench.

3. Police complicity in custodial violence: FIR ordered against former SHO

Perhaps the most egregious case of police misconduct came in the case involving the custodial torture of riot victims, including Faizan, a young Muslim man who later died from his injuries. A widely circulated video from the riots showed Delhi Police personnel beating injured Muslim men and forcing them to sing the national anthem and chant slogans like “Jai Shri Ram” and “Vande Mataram.” The brutality captured in the footage was emblematic of the communal bias and impunity with which certain officers acted during the riots.

The complainant, Mohd. Wasim, provided a chilling account of how he was beaten, thrown onto a pile of other injured victims, and later taken to Jyoti Nagar police station, where the then-SHO and other officers continued to torture them. He was allegedly forced to sign false statements and give misleading accounts to the media under police pressure. Despite such grave allegations, the Delhi Police refused to act until a court intervened. In its order, Magistrate Udbhav Kumar Jain ordered the registration of an FIR against the former SHO under serious charges, including wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and deliberate religious insult.

“Clearly, the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar, Mr. Tomar (complete name with post not provided) and other unknown police officials engaged themselves in hate crimes against the complainant/victim and they cannot be protected under the garb of sanction as alleged offences committed by them cannot be said to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge if their official duty,” the Court added, as per Bar&Bench.

“Current SHO is directed to depute a responsible officer not below the rank of Inspector to conduct investigation in the present matter and role of other unknown police officials involved in the commission of alleged offences,” added the court.

The court categorically rejected the police’s argument that the accused officers were merely performing their official duties, stating that hate crimes committed by those in uniform cannot be excused under the guise of law enforcement.

“FIR be registered under sections 295-A/323/342/506 IPC against the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar (Mr. Tomar) who was holding the said post in February-March 2020,” the order stated.

This judgment reaffirms the necessity of accountability for custodial violence, particularly in cases where state institutions themselves become perpetrators of communal violence.

The larger picture: A systemic failure

Taken together, these three orders expose a systemic failure in policing during the 2020 Delhi riots. The courts have repeatedly highlighted:

• Selective investigation: While cases against political figures like Kapil Mishra were ignored, others were prosecuted with flimsy or fabricated evidence.
• Complicity in violence: Police personnel not only failed to control the riots but, in some instances, actively participated in violence and custodial torture.
• Bias in legal proceedings: Individuals from marginalised communities were falsely implicated, while officers and politicians aligned with the ruling party enjoyed impunity.

The Delhi Police’s actions—or lack thereof—during and after the riots raise serious concerns about institutional bias and political interference in law enforcement. These court observations serve as a crucial indictment of a law enforcement agency that has repeatedly been accused of favouring one side in communal conflicts. While the judicial interventions are significant, they also expose the limitations of legal remedies in the absence of genuine political will for police accountability and reform.

Related:

Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice”

Did Nand Kishore Gurjar admit to role in North East Delhi riots?

Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots

The post Delhi Police on Trial: Three court orders reveal collusion, cover-ups, and custodial torture by police officers during 2020 Delhi riots appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a strongly worded judgement delivered by the Delhi High Court Justice Anup Bhambhani on July 23, the court minced no words as it questioned the investigation done by the Delhi Police and ordered the transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) citing tardy and sketchy conduct of the former. In a case relating to the death of one Faizan, the victim of 2020 Delhi violence, who was beaten by a mob dressed in police uniform and later alleged to have been tortured in police custody at Jyoti Nagar police station, the case now stands transferred out of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Delhi Police, and has been handed over to the CBI for further investigation and prompt action. The petition was filed by the mother of the deceased, Kismatun, and was argued by advocate Vrinda Grover for the petitioner.

Notably, Faizan had succumbed to his injuries on the intervening night of February 26 and 27, 2020 while being treated at Lok Nayak Hospital in New Delhi. An FIR (No. 75/2020) was registered against his death at Bhajanpura Police Station on February 28, 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against unknown persons. Furthermore, while the FIR was registered on February 28, the Crime Branch took the statement of her mother almost 3 weeks later, on March 18. The case became sensational in the backdrop of 2020 Delhi Violence after a video went viral on the social media, in which a group of men dressed in police uniform could be been beating Faizan with their batons and forcing him sing National Anthem even as they questioned his patriotism.

The High Court observed that “the Crime Branch of Delhi Police examined the petitioner for the first time only on 18.03.2020. More than 4½ years have elapsed since. However, not even one of the policemen involved in the abuse and assault has been conclusively identified in the course of the investigation so far. The perpetrators of the crime are therefore still at large, though they are all members of the police force in Delhi.”

Facts of the case

Faizan, a 23-year-old young man, had left his home on February 24, 2020 to search for his mother, Kismatun, who had been protesting along with other women against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). When his mother retuned back home, she did not find Faizan around, and in the meantime, the communal violence had broken out in their area. Later, it was learnt that Faizan along with other Muslim men had been beaten and dumped near the street by the police forces who forced them to sing National Anthem (though the prosecution version alleged that they had rescued Faizan as he was injured due to stone pelting when the riots broke out in the area). Subsequently, the police personnel from Jyoti Nagar police station took the men, along with Faizan, to GTB hospital for medico-legal check-up (incidentally, the men were under the jurisdiction of Bhajanpura Police Station when they were taken away by the Jyoti Nagar police personnel).

While at GTB hospital, Faizan received basic medical aid, including stitches on his head and ear, and was referred by the hospital for a further specialised medical treatment. His mother alleged that on the same day, i.e., 24.02.2020, upon receiving the information that Faizan had been at GTB hospital, they visited the hospital at 8PM but were informed that the police had taken back the men to Jyoti Nagar police station after ensuring basic medical treatment. What happened to Faizan at the police station is a matter of dispute, with the petitioner alleging that Faizan had been tortured at the station by men in uniform even while denying him urgent special medical treatment as was recommended by GTB hospital due to which his son succumbed to his injuries later on. The police version claimed that Faizan had voluntarily stayed at the station as the situation was communally tense in his area after the outbreak of the riots, and no harm was done to him at the station; nonetheless, it did not deny the video in which Faizan was earlier shown being beaten up by the men in uniform before being taken to the hospital and subsequently to the police station. The mother had questioned the police claim about his son allegedly voluntarily staying at the police station and said that she had visited the Jyoti Nagar police station on February 24 itself, but was not provided any helpful response. Importantly, all the CCTVs were out of order in Jyoti Nagar Police Station during the time of Faizan’s custody, the fact which both the petitioner and the court found suspicious. While Faizan was finally handed over to his mother on February 25 late night, he was found severely wounded, with torn trousers, blood-soaked clothes, and multiple stiches around his head and ear. He was admitted to Lok Nayak hospital the very next day, i.e., on February 26, where he later succumbed to his injuries.

High Court Judgement

Justice Anup Bhambhani posed multiple queries on the conduct of investigation and countered the claims made by Delhi Police on several fronts. The court said that it took almost 3 weeks upon registration of the FIR for the police to record the statement of the petitioner (victim’s mother) and collect the blood-stained, torn clothes worn by Faizan at the time of the incident. Further, the police have failed to take the statement of the witness, Kausar Ali, who was another injured victim and eye-witness to the incident. As per Ali, the police had started beating Faizan and other men without any provocation, and mocked at the victims while questioning their patriotism merely on the basis of their religious identity even as they laid severely injured on the roadside. Significantly, the Delhi Court High pointed out that “the police have failed to even identify the policemen who had humiliated and brutally assaulted Faizan (and four other young men), as plainly visible in the video-footage available in the public domain.” The verdict also observed that no action has been taken against police personnel at Jyoti Nagar police station where Faizan was illegally detained and denied urgent medical intervention, which resulted in his death.

The judgement further brought attention to the issue raised by the petitioner, which questioned the claim of the police that no CCTV footage is available to trace gypsy in which Faizan was picked up, even though the route in question would have several commercial establishments, petrol pumps, and DMRC metro stations.  On the malfunctioning of the CCTVs inside the police station premises, the court cited Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Ors., which says that “It shall be the duty and obligation of the SHO to immediately report to the DLOC any fault with the equipment or malfunctioning of CCTVs. If the CCTVs are not functioning in a particular police station, the SHO concerned shall inform the DLOC of the arrest/interrogations carried out in that police station during the said period and forward the said record to the DLOC”. In this regard, the verdict notes that the police took a very convenient stand, presenting a fait-accompli, which does not inspire confidence and cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the claim made by the police that Faizan stayed at the station at his own will was found counter-intuitive, and the court reasoned if that was the case, he would have at least informed about his whereabout to his family. The verdict also commented that if Faizan was already severely injured why would he be kept at the police station, even at his own request and safety?

Significantly, Justice Bhambhani countered the narrative of the Delhi Police, which claimed that it has not been able to identify the guilty personnel. The judge said that, as per the narrative, “SHO, P.S.: Jyoti Nagar took the injured young men to GTB Hospital in a police Gypsy but that the said police officer has been unable to identify any of the policemen who were involved in the abuse and assault.” He further said that putting the said SHO to polygraph test only now, after 4 years, is not suggestive of the investigation and promptitude. The verdict emphasised that none of the accused have been identified till date even though the Investigating Officer “informs the court that they have identified a head constable and a constable who were present at the spot, as possible suspects, it is their case that the said two policemen have given deceptive responses in their polygraph tests…”.

The judgment recognised the present case as an instance of hate crime and citing the judicial precedent in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India &Ors, it remarked, “It must be understood that mob-vigilantism and mob-violence do not cease to be so merely because these are perpetrated, not by ordinary citizens, but by policemen themselves. If anything, the element of abomination gets aggravated if hate-crime is committed by persons in uniform.” The verdict further underscored the importance of fair investigation, and said that “a fair investigation, and not just a fair trial, is now considered part of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Relying on the judicial precedents concerning fair trial and investigation in Bharati Tamang vs. Union of India, Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, and Awungshi Chirmayo & Anr. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court transferred the case registered under FIR No. 75/2020 at Bhajanpura Police Station to the CBI as it reasoned that the perpetrators of the offence are themselves members of the agency that is investigating the crime, and this does not inspire confidence.

Today, the court rejected Delhi Police’s plea to put the order in abeyance but it extended the time for transfer of the investigation to CBI from 7 days to 14 days.

The High Court judgement may be read here:

Related:

With Delhi Violence Cases Caving in, Who Will Fix Police Accountability for Lying on Oath?

Delhi violence 2020: 4 years on, the shadow of violence lives on

Delhi violence: Will not take such mishaps leniently: says Court as Delhi police brings “irrelevant witness”

Delhi violence hate platforms? TV channels ‘incited’ communal strife, alleges report

The post Delhi High Court transfers to CBI the case involving Delhi violence victim Faizan who was attacked by the mob in police uniform and forced to sing National Anthem appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Police officials have told PTI, “In the incident at Inderlok today, the Police Post In charge, who was seen in the video has been suspended with immediate effect. Necessary disciplinary action is also taken.” Reports suggest that the officer is suspended for three months.

As the prayers unfolded, police officials arrived at the scene in an attempt to disperse the gathering. However, the situation took a violent turn as one officer was caught on camera physically assaulting men who were peacefully kneeling for their Friday prayers. The footage sparked immediate outrage, with onlookers confronting the officer preventing him from committing potential further abuse of the prayer goers. It is noteworthy that the fellow officers with him do not do anything to prevent him from kicking the citizens.

Responding to the incident, Deputy Commissioner of Police (North) MK Meena told the media that an enquiry will be initiated, and that the official has been suspended, and further disciplinary measures are promised.

Imran Pratapgarhi, an MP in Rajya Sabha from the Congress party, posted the video on X and also later, asked when an FIR will be filed against the offender in this case under relevant sections.

According to United against Hate activist Nadeem Khan, who posted a video of the following on his X account, a protest is also taking place at the site

In the aftermath of the incident, heightened security measures have been implemented in the affected area to maintain order and address potential tensions, as per reports.

Thus far, CPI (M) state level committee in Delhi has condemned the incident. Member of Congress working committee, Supriya Shinate also posted on the incident. Stating:

अमित शाह की दिल्ली पुलिस का motto “है

शांति सेवा न्याय

पूरी शिद्दत से काम पर हैं”

Prakash Ambedkar of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi also shared the video on X , stating that the ‘destruction of Muslims has begun.’ 

 Related:

Delhi violence 2020: 4 years on, the shadow of violence lives on

Haldwani: Police allege planned mob attack, as local Muslims state police harassing and detaining family members without evidence

Uttar Pradesh, Bihar: Outrage erupts as policemen commit heinous crimes against Dalits

The post Cop caught kicking and slapping Muslims during Friday prayer appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The child’s parents are both labourers in a factory who resided in a rented accommodation in Ghaziabad. The horrifying incident took place near her home. Her parents revealed that the girl was last seen near her home around 2 pm on that fateful day. It was also observed that she went missing only after she accepted a lift from Rana. 

The father of the victim told The Quint that initially they had just thought that she was out playing, but they grew worried as there was no sign of her till night, “I left for work in the morning, while my wife left at around 1:30 pm, taking our two-year-old son with her. My daughter was playing outside when my wife left. But later, I got a call from my neighbour that my daughter was missing. Initially, I thought she had gone to her friend’s place, but there was no sign of her till night.” The father narrated that Rana, accused of the crime, had even offered to search for her when they discovered she was missing. Following this, the child’s family contacted the police on December 12 at around 8:30 pm to report her disappearance.    

The accused, Rana, the alleged perpetrator, had been admitted to a hospital after he had had a road accident, and following this accident he confessed to the police after they questioned him.

“He told us he abducted the girl and killed her on December 12. He claimed to have dumped the body in a canal. We have been trying to retrieve it. We are checking the route he took on the day of the crime,” the DCP has stated, according to Outlook India. 

As of now the body of the  murdered victim is not found,  the Delhi police in the investigation are trying to locate the body in the canal where Rana states that he had allegedly disposed of it. The police have stated, “We are checking entire routes of the accused and the accused will be brought in to search for the victim’s body on Tuesday.” According to The Quint, divers have been deployed to survey the canal. 

Meanwhile, Swati Maliwal, the chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW), has taken note of the situation and issued a notice to the station house officer of the respective area for a report on the progress of the investigation. The accused so far has been booked by the police on charges of murder, kidnapping and rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 

The victim’s family and neighbours have staged a protest at GT Karnal road. The protesting family members have told The Quint, “No one should ever go through what we did. We need justice. Before that, all I want is for the police to find my daughter’s body so we can perform her last rites.”

Related

Dalits attacked by upper castes at Buddha Katha ceremony in Kanpur

Four arrested for kidnapping and beating Dalit boys

Dalits in Tamil Nadu are experiencing a rise in violence against them

Madhya Pradesh: Dalits villagers, including women, attacked by dominant caste group over cutting of tree

The post 9-year-old Dalit girl raped and murdered in Ghaziabad by 52-year-old landlord appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bahujan Samaj Party MP Danish Ali, All India Muslim Personal Law Board spokesperson and Welfare Party of India national president Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, and lawyer MR Shamshad have denounced the police notice, asserting that the police action is completely wrong and the praying for the victims is an integral part of worship in Islam stated Maqtoob Media.

Muslim leaders have argued that the directive infringes upon both freedom of expression and religious freedom, Articles 19 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. This development occurs as mosques worldwide join in Palestine solidarity, with Friday prayers witnessed speeches and prayers dedicated to the Palestinian cause.The Inquilab also reported that the cops intervened during prayers at a mosque in Old Delhi, pressuring an imam not to mention Palestine.

Yesterday, November 14, a peaceful protest by women’s groups called nationwide, was sought to be prevented in Mumbai, it is reported.

Related:

Withdraw FIRs filed against protestors for participating in pro-Palestine protests: PUCL

The post “Don’t pray for Palestine,” Delhi Police reportedly warns mosque imams appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pursuant to the raids and sealing of the Newsclick office, on October 4, a statement was released by Newsclick wherein they firmly condemned the action undertaken by the Government “that refuses to respect journalistic independence, and treats criticism as sedition or “anti-national” propaganda.” They provided that no FIR has been submitted to them and the electronic devices seized from the houses of journalists without any adherence to law.

The complete statement can be read here.

A copy of the FIR was supplied to the Newsclick on October 5 on the order of the Delhi Court.

Since the news of massive searches surfaced multiple protests have been organised and statements of solidarity have been extended. Students, journalists, media organisations, politicians, etc. spanning across the length and breadth of the country expressed their anguish and surprise at the crackdown, and took to streets and social media to show camaraderie with the ones that were (and still are) targetted. For those protesting, the searches were clearly aimed at suppressing dissent and controlling the remaining independent media houses that are critical of the Modi government.

1. Protest at Jantar Mantar

On October 4, a protest was called by All India Students’ Association (AISA) at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. The said protest saw the participation of a large group of civil society members- journalists, students and citizens. Protestors could be seen carrying banners at the protest, bearing the messages “We will neither bend nor crawl”, “Release Prabir Purkayastha” and “Stop attack on press freedom”. As per reports, the said protest saw the participation of more than 500 people.

Shabnam Hashmi, sister of historian Sohail Hashmi whose house was also raided by the Delhi Police was quoted by the Print as saying, “These attempts will not deter us from standing for what is right.”

Furthermore, Neha, secretary of the AISA’s Delhi unit, had addressed the protest gathering and stated that “This is a blatant attack on the democratic values of India. The government is targeting the journalists who raised their voice in support of the farmers’ issue. We condemn this attack on press freedom in the country.” She had further called for a citizens’ collective effort to fight back against the illegal police action.

1 of 3

2. Protest outside the Press Club of India

On October 4, several journalists expressed their angst and protested at the office of Press Club of India to show solidarity. The said protest saw the participation of Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who was himself interrogated as a part of the raids for being a contributor at Newsclick, MK Venu, Siddharth Varadarajan, author Ramchandra Guha, Mukul Kesavan and author Arundhati Roy. The protesting journalists had held banners demanding press freedom and end to misuse of anti-terror laws against independent and free thinking journalist.

Journalist Thakurta had also shared his experience with the questioning and behaviour of the police. “The entire staff of Delhi’s Special Cell asked me a set of many questions. However, their behaviour was very decent. They asked me if I needed tea and ordered lunch for me as well. As for the two — Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty —who have been arrested, I feel the police also behave in a decent way with them,” Thakurta said, as per a report of the New Indian Express.

 Protest outside the NYT office in New York

A protest was held in New York, USA in front of the NYT offices to extend support to Newsclick and journalists under attack. The solidarity protest also voiced their anger against the New York Times (NYT) which had published an ‘investigative piece’ in August, alleging NewsClick received funding from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which had formed the basis of the police action. The protestors could be seen carrying yellow placards that read “NYT lies leads to Modi’s crimes against the Press”, “Stop NYT Slander against anti-war voices”, and “Hands off NewsClick and independent media.” The protestors also called out the Modi government’s stance against press freedom.

A video from the protest can be viewed here:

Hands off NewsClick!

A recent New York Times hit piece smeared leading Indian progressive outlet @newsclickin as part of a “Chinese propaganda network”. This week the Modi gov’t cited this pretext for mass raids & arrest of journalists — we protested outside the NYT in response! pic.twitter.com/BsOyWJzagJ

— Party for Socialism and Liberation (@pslnational) October 4, 2023

4. Protest at Kolkata Press Club

On October 5, a solidarity protest was called by the Kolkata Press Club wherein hundreds of journalists had gathered. As per media reports, the protesting journalists had taken out a rally from the Press Club premises to the Gandhi Statue. The protesting journalist could be seen donning black badges and carrying placards saying, “Journalists are not terrorists”, “Defend press freedom”, etc.

Participating in the protest were renowned members of the media fraternity such as veteran journalist Rantideb Sengupta, Subhasish Maitra, ALTnews founder Pratik Sinha, senior journalist Monideepa Banerjee (former regional director of NDTV), Calcutta Journalists Club president Prantik Sen, associate editor of Bengali daily, Ganashakti, Atanu Saha, Press Club Kolkata president Snehasish Sur and secretary, Kingshuk Pramanik.

5. Protest at Freedom Park, Bangalore

A protest was held at the Freedom Park, Bangalore which saw the participation of several prominent citizens and civil society organisations. Journalists and lawyers had led the protest. Arvind Narrain, president of the Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Karnataka, was also a part of the said protest and had pointed out that the recent raids and arrests mirror those that marked the beginning of the Emergency of 1975-77.

6. Candlelight Vigil at Mumbai Press Club

Various media organisations in Mumbai came together to hold a candlelight vigil in solidarity with the NewsClick journalists on October 5 within the premises of the Mumbai Press Club. The event was backed by the Mumbai Press Club, Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh, TV Journalists Association, Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists, Bombay News Photographers Association, and Mantralaya Vidhimandal Vartahar Sangh.

The participating protesting media organisations expressed their collective concern and emphasised the need for an impartial investigation into the allegations. They also called upon the authorities and the Delhi Police to cease actions perceived as a targeted campaign of harassment against these journalists.

Journalists in Mumbai protests against the BJP centre govt & its police coercive actions against journalists under draconian law. Journalists condemned the Delhi police act of seizing the mobile phones and laptops of the journalists. pic.twitter.com/cogix7O0B0

— Sudhir Suryawanshi (@ss_suryawanshi) October 5, 2023

Speaking at the protest, senior journalist Nikhil Wagle compared the current crackdown on independent dissenting voices to the ones that took place during the emergency.

Senior Marathi journalist Nikhil Wagle (@waglenikhil) condemns crackdown on journalists by #Modi govt and compares it to the “declared emergency in 1984” #NewsClick #Mumbai. #JournalismIsNotACrime pic.twitter.com/vt3oJNCIBS

— Anmol Alphonso (@AnmolAlphonso) October 5, 2023

1 of 4

7. Protest by journalists in Hyderabad

On October 5, a protest march was held by the Indian Journalists Union in Hyderabad to condemn the raids. The protest began at Desoddharaka Bhavan in Basheerbagh and ended near the Ambedkar statue near Tankbund.

Journalists protest rally in #Hyderabad against #DelhiPolice oppression raids on #NewsClick in #Delhi ##NewsClickRaided @MahtabNama @ShabnamHashmi pic.twitter.com/WnLCaQxkvr

— Mubashir.Khurram (@infomubashir) October 5, 2023

8. Demonstration and reading of a memorandum to the PM in Indore

On October 5, a demonstration against the attack on journalists was held in Indore, Madhya Pradesh wherein around 50 people assembled in front of the commissioner’s office near Gandhi Hall. The protest began with exhortation of slogans and display of posters denouncing the abusive police action and led to the crowd marching gathering at the entrance of the commissioner’s building.  On behalf of the organizers, Vineet Tiwari (National Secretary, Progressive Writers’ Association) read out the memorandum of the protest addressed to the Prime Minister which had raised questions regarding the harassment of journalists by authorities, the allegations of terrorism and anti-nationalism levied against Newsclick and the erosion of fundamental rights.

1 of 4

Many conscientious citizens, intellectuals, artists, journalists associations – both nationally and internationally have also come out in solidarity with newsclick.

9. Statement by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and international support

On October 3, the CPJ had called for the immediate release of arrested Prabir Purkayastha. The international organisation had also asked the Indian authorities to “stop trying to intimidate journalists through tactics such as Tuesday’s police raids on the Delhi office of Indian news website NewsClick and the homes of at least 12 staff and journalists with ties to the outlet.”

Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, also stated that “This is the latest attack on press freedom in India. We urge the Indian government to immediately cease these actions as journalists must be allowed to work without fear of intimidation or reprisal.”

As per The Hindu, a similar statement was also issued by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia, urging the authorities to respect the fundamental rights of journalists and uphold the principles of press freedom and freedom of expression as per the Indian Constitution.

On October 4, 2023, the Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights had also expressed serious concern over the ongoing assault on media freedom in India and the detention of journalists, saying, “Our office is troubled by reports of raids, arrests and detentions, and seizures of property of journalists in Delhi yesterday (Tuesday).”

As per a report of the Wire, the spokesperson in the office of the Human Rights Commissioner had said: “We have previously expressed concern about the shrinking of civic space in India, in particular for independent journalists and activists, and yesterday’s events may have a further chilling effect.”

10. Students of Columbia School of Journalism speak out

On October 5, the students of Columbia Journalism School also issued a statement condemning the persecution of journalists in India. In their statement, they highlighted the falling position that India holds in the Freedom Press Index and the worrying trend of using anti-terror laws against journalists to silence the truth.

11. Statement by Amnesty International India

Aakar Patel, chair of board at Amnesty International India, also issued a statement on consistent targeting of Newsclick and the recent raids. He said “Journalism is not a crime. The NewsClick raids and the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty are the latest attempts by the Indian government to decimate independent and critical media. Authorities must immediately release Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty and allow them to carry out their work without any reprisals.”

In his statement, Patel further highlighted the grave attack on human rights by employment of UAPA, a draconian law which violates fair trial rights with impunity, and urged for the immediate release of journalists detained on trumped-up or politically motivated charges and solely for their critical reporting.

12. Statement by the Press Club of India, the Editors Guild of India and other news organisations and associations of jo

The Press Club of India (PCI) and the Editors Guild of India (EGI) issued statements expressing solidarity with the journalists being questioned and arrested in the Newsclick case. have urged the government to provide details.

The EGI had issued a statement stating that it was deeply concerned about the raids at the residences of senior journalists. The organisation had called the said raids to be an attempt to muzzle the media. “We remind the government of the importance of an independent media in a functioning democracy and urge it to ensure that the fourth pillar is respected, nurtured and protected. While we recognise that the law must take its course if actual offences are involved, the due process has to be followed. The investigation of specific offences must not create a general atmosphere of intimidation under the shadow of draconian laws, or impinge on the freedom of expression and the raising of dissenting and critical voices,” the guild had said.

The PCI had expressed their deep concern regarding the raids by taking to ‘X’ (formerly known as Twitter) and stated “The PCI stand in solidarity with the journalists and demand the government to come out with details.”

The Press Club of India is deeply concerned about the multiple raids conducted on the houses of journalists and writers associated with #Newsclick.

We are monitoring the developments and will be releasing a detailed statement.

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) October 3, 2023

A statement was also released by the Indian Women’s Press Corps on social media through which they had expressed outrage and argued that the repeated targeting of certain media outlets for their criticism of government policies that are not people-friendly reflects poorly on a government that represents the world’s largest democracy.

We at @IWPC express strong outrage at the targeting of our members and other journalists.

We stand in solidarity with them and demand they be released and harassment stopped pic.twitter.com/2rPWyje765

— Indian Women’s Press Corps (@iwpcdelhi) October 3, 2023

The National Alliance of Journalists, the Delhi Union of Journalists, and the Kerala Union of Working Journalists (Delhi Unit) had also issued statements condemning the act of the Delhi police, emphasising the far-reaching impact that such raids will have on press freedom. Furthermore, the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) had demanded that usage of stringent anti-terror laws such as the UAPA indiscriminately to target journalists should be prohibited.

A joint statement was also issued by ten independent media organisations of West Bengal wherein they had highlighted the abuse of law against journalists, using spywares as well as increasing raids by government agencies like ED and the CBI to harass journalists.

Ten independent media organisations of West Bengal come together to support #NewsClick and attacked independent journalists pic.twitter.com/uL9Qy8gVOy

— Nagorik.net (@netnagorik) October 4, 2023

The Press Club of Bangalore in a statement said that it was deeply concerned over the raids by the Delhi police on the residences of journalists. “The Press Club of Bangalore urges for an unbiased and fast-tracked investigation in the matter while pushing for all authorities to uphold the freedom of press,” it had said.

13. Renowned intellectuals speak out

On October 5, a joint statement was issued by renowned writers and activists, including International Booker Prize winner Geetanjali Shree, Ramon Magsaysay Award winners P. Sainath and Aruna Roy, writers K.R. Meera, Perumal Murugan, Ramachandra Guha and V. Geetha, and singer T.M. Krishna. Through the statement, they condemned the Delhi Police’s UAPA case and action against the editor, staff members and contributors of Newsclick. in their statement, they have emphasised that “criticism is essential for a democracy and any attempt to mute voices is an assault on India’s democratic spirit.”

An open letter renouncing the employment of repressive tactics by the Indian government, issued by the International media outlet Peoples Dispatch, was signed by over 300 journalists, political leaders, artists, academics, and progressive activists from around the world. The statement provided that “NewsClick is exactly the kind of media outlet which strengthens a democracy, shining a light and giving a voice to those marginalized and silenced sectors of society which clamor for dignity and change.”

14. Statement by political parties and leaders.

In a joint statement, the INDIA alliance, a coalition of 28 opposition political parties, expressed their dismay over the raids conducted and  alleged that the Narendra Modi government has persecuted the media over the past nine years by using investigative agencies against them. As reported by the Hindu, the coalition had said, “The coercive actions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government are directed against only those media organisations and journalists that speak truth to power.”

The statement can be accessed here:

INDIA stands against any form of intimidation or silencing of journalistic voices. We are on the side of democracy, not dictatorship.

This is nothing but yet another distraction from the most important question in India today – of a nationwide caste census. pic.twitter.com/FG1UWXWbrT

— K C Venugopal (@kcvenugopalmp) October 3, 2023

Many leaders of the opposition parties have also been putting out separate posts on social media to show their continuous support with the journalists and defending their rights.

On October 5, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor also pointed finger at the Delhi Police and called the raids “unfortunate and a disgrace to democracy and traditions of freedom”

“Freedom of the press is fundamental to any democracy…In our country, we have a very long record of Supreme Court judgments upholding the freedom of the press in our country. I believe the government erred. If there is a charge of foreign funding that is illegal or improper, there are right ways to investigate it. But confiscating journalists’ laptops and depriving them of access is not right,” Tharoor told the media.

The video of Tharoor addressing the media can be viewed here:

#WATCH | Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala: On Delhi Police conducting raids at different premises linked to #NewsClick, #Congress MP #ShashiTharoor says, “Freedom of the press is fundamental to any democracy…What happened yesterday was not only unfortunate, it was a disgrace to our… pic.twitter.com/XkAJshrNjc

— NewsMobile (@NewsMobileIndia) October 5, 2023

Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan tweeted his condemnation

Condemn the efforts to stifle alternative media that highlight issues sidelined by mainstream media. Criticism of Delhi Police’s moves against @newsclickin should be taken seriously. Silencing opposing voices is a fascist tendency. GoI should uphold the freedom of media to…

— Pinarayi Vijayan (@pinarayivijayan) October 4, 2023

15. Joint letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India by Digipub

On October 4, a letter was addressed to the Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, requesting for judicial intervention to “put an end to the increasingly repressive use of investigating agencies against the media”.

“During your time at the Supreme Court, you have seen how on numerous occasions, the country’s investigating agencies have been misused and weaponised against the press,” the letter said. “Sedition and terrorism cases have been filed against editors and reporters, and multiple, sequential and/or frivolous FIRs have been used as an instrument of harassment against journalists.”

The letter urged for the courts to consider three points: the framing of norms to discourage the seizure of journalists’ devices; guidelines for seizures and the interrogation of journalists; and finding ways to ensure accountability of state agencies. Through the letter, the media organisations also highlighted that these raids are an attack against the democratic structure of our country and its fourth pillar by stating that “…ad hoc, sweeping seizures and interrogations surely cannot be considered acceptable in any democratic country.”

Notably, the said letter was signed by a coalition of 24 media organisations, including the Press Club of India, Digipub News India foundation, The Indian Women’s Press Co., Foundation for Media Professionals, Chandigarh Press Club, Kerala Union of Journalists, among others.

Letter from the media to D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India, on the Delhi police raids at the homes of journalists and seizure of devices.

“…ad hoc, sweeping seizures and interrogations surely cannot be considered acceptable in any democratic country.” pic.twitter.com/AY1idO1Oao

— DIGIPUB News India Foundation (@DigipubIndia) October 4, 2023

16. Statement by the PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties)

On October 3, a statement was released by the PUCL condemning the raids as well as shocking usage of draconian terror sections against journalists. The statement highlighted that the raids have been carried out by the Delhi police “in order to influence public opinion and the court” as the 2021 cases of ED against the news portal and its founder were listed to be heard by the Delhi High Court after a week.

Additionally, the PUCL deemed the police action to be “nothing other than an egregious abuse of state power utilized to build a fairy tale narrative that Chinese money was being used by the raided journalists and media professionals for purposes of terrorism!”

The complete statement can be read here.

17. Statement by the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD)

On October 4, the NPRD released a statement strongly condemning the raids against Newsclick as well as the arrest of Amit Chakravarthi, who is a polio survivor and person with disability using crutches. In their statement, the international commitments of India to protect people with disabilities from inhumane treatment and torture was emphasised upon. The NPRD urged the authorities to make all reasonable accommodations for Amit Chakravarti while he remained in custody and take care of his accessibility needs. The statement, signed by general secretary Muralidharan, also said that the portal has been consistently championing the cause of the marginalised sections, including disabled people.

NPRD statement demanding #reasonableaccommodation for #disabled #polio survivor Amit Chakravarti of @newsclickin covered in @thewire_in https://t.co/hvQe3NEEkZ @armanaly @ncpedp_india @drag_org @vjayakumar @DisabilityIndia @SNAMBURAJAN @handicareindia @AmbikaPanditTOI

— National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (@NPRD_IN) October 5, 2023

18. Statement by the Campaign Against State Repression (CASR)

On October 5, a strongly-worded statement was released by the CASR condemned the raids against Newclick journalists, associated activists and NIA raids all over the country in the name of national security as well as the arrests made after these raids. CASR’s statement painted a concerning picture of the broader repression occurring across India. The CASR also demanded for the immediate end to the raids and for the immediate release of all political prisoners arrested after these raids. They also urged all democratic organizations and activists to come together in a united struggle against ‘Brahmanical Hindutva fascism’.

19. Memorandum submitted to Delhi Police Commissioner by National Union of Journalists (India)

On October 5, under the leadership of NUJI President Rash Bihari, a delegation of journalists submitted a memorandum to Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora to ensure that there is a fair investigation and that no journalists are misbehaved with by the police during interrogation. Notably, the NUJI is affiliated with the International Federation of Journalists. It was also asserted by the NUJI that it has always been in favor of independent, impartial and transparent journalism and strict action must be taken against anyone that is producing fake news, but no innocent journalist should be put behind bars.

20. Press Release by the All Indian Kisan Sabha (AIKS)

On October 5, the AIKS released a statement strongly criticizing the fascistic assault on NewsClick and other independent media organisations who are critical of the Narendra Modi led BJP regime. The statement provided that “The hounding of NewsClick based on false allegations is part of a larger design by the Modi regime to eliminate all forms of dissent. It is a blatant attack on press freedom.”

The AIKS highlighted the tireless role that the news click played in covering the stories of Farmer’s protest against the three farm laws, the killing of the dairy farmers by cow vigilantes, the role of the Sangh parivar in delhi riots, depicting “Newslick’s journalistic integrity and commitment to the masses”. An appeals was also made by the AIKS to the Indian peasantry “to intensify their struggles and align with democratic forces to fight this undeclared emergency.”

The complete statement can be read here.

There are reports of multiple protests from across India even as this piece is being published.

Related:

What is behind the synchronised Income Tax “survey” at NewsClick, Newslaundry? 

113 hours raiding multiple locations, it is still not clear why the ED is investigations Newsclick

ED Raids & NewsClick: Weaponising law by Criminalising Free Speech

85 hours and counting: Raid continues at NewsClick, editor’s health deteriorates

ED questioning of NewsClick Founder continues, while staff’s electronic gadgets seized

Truth shall prevail, have full faith in legal system: Newsclick

The post Newsclick: Resounding voices of solidarity from all over in defence of press freedom appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Significantly, Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that the compensation amount should be recovered from the salaries of sub-inspectors Rajeev Gautam and Shamim Khan, the two police officers who put the petitioner in the lock-up. The Court observed that police officers “cannot be law unto themselves and a meaningful message” must be sent out to the authorities.

This Court also commented stating that it is troubled at the way the citizens are being treated by the Police authorities who behave as if they are above the law, the Court said.

“The time spent in the lock-up by the petitioner, even for a short while, cannot absolve the police officers who have deprived the petitioners of his liberty without following the due procedure established by law… This Court is of the opinion that a meaningful message must be sent to the authorities that police officers cannot be law unto themselves,” Justice Prasad underscored.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a man named Pankaj Kumar Sharma who was illegally detained at Delhi’s Badarpur Police Station on September 2, 2022, over a year ago.

According to the facts of the case, a woman was stabbed by a vegetable seller on September 22 at around 9 pm. The woman came to the petitioner’s shop and said that she had been injured. The petitioner called the police. However, when the police came to the spot, they picked up the petitioner and placed him in the lock-up with even registering a first information report (FIR).

During the course of the investigation, the Court was told that an inquiry was held against the officers and that a punishment of censure has been imposed on them. Justice Prasad considered the case and observed that even though it was for a short period of time, petitioner was deprived of his personal liberty, a right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“This Court is deeply troubled by the fact that the petitioner was not even arrested. He was simply picked up from the spot, brought to the police station and placed inside the lock-up for no rhyme or reason. The highhanded way in which the Police authorities have acted throwing to winds the constitutional and fundamental rights of a citizen, is appalling. Court is troubled at the way the citizens are being treated by the Police authorities who behave as if they are above the law. A punishment of censure alone is not sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case.” the Court further observed said. (Para 10)

Hence, clearly, the Court was also of the view that in this case, a punishment of censure is not enough because it is not likely to have any effect on the career of the police officers and is therefore is not a sufficient deterrent.

Reiterating the power of constitutional courts in protecting fundamental freedoms, the Court stated, “The said principle is now well established that in cases where there can be no dispute of facts, the constitutional courts have the power to award compensation in case a person has been deprived of his life and liberty W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 9 of 9 without following the procedure established by law. (Para 13)

“The time spent in the lock-up by the Petitioner, even for a short while, cannot absolve the police officers who have deprived the Petitioners of his liberty without following the due procedure established by law. A punishment of censure which is not likely to have any effect on the career of the police officers will not be a sufficient deterrent to the officer. The censure should be of such nature that other officers too must not emulate such actions in future… In the facts of this case, even though the illegal detention of the Petitioner was only for about half an hour, this Court is inclined to grant compensation of ₹50,000 to the petitioner, which shall be recovered from the salaries of respondents No.4 and 5 [Sub-Inspectors Rajeev Gautam and Shamim Khan],” the Court ordered. (Para 14)

The Delhi HC relied on the epic judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) in D K Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416, had directed the following requirements to be fulfilled in case of arrest.

Paragraph 35 of the said judgment (D.K. Basu) reads as under:-

“35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 4 of 9 arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.

(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 5 of 9 examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.

(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board. “

Critically, the Delhi HC emphasises the SC’s observations in Para 44 in D K Basu (supra) also observed as under (Para 11):-

“44. The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortious acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.

The Delhi HC judgement also relies on the Nilabati Behera case [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527 : 1993 Cri LJ 2899] in which heirs of a victim of custodial torture were granted compensation.

46. In Nilabati Behera case [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527 : 1993 Cri LJ 2899] , it was held: (SCC pp. 767-68, para 32) “

Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 7 of 9 of custodial death for the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party.

The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore, to evolve „new tools‟ to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law.

While concluding his first Hamlyn Lecture in 1949 under the title „Freedom under the Law‟ Lord Denning in his own style warned: „No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not do things that they ought to do.

But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, our procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age.

They must be replaced by new and up-to-date machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions for negligence…. This is not the task of Parliament … the courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead this is the greatest.

Properly exercised the new powers of the executive W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 8 of 9 lead to the welfare state; but abused they lead to a totalitarian state. None such must ever be allowed in this country.‟ ”

Similarly, the present Delhi HC judgement, further relied on Nilabati Behera v. State of Orisa & Ors., 1993 (2) SCC 746, while dealing with the power of a constitutional court to award compensation rather than relegating such person to file a suit for recovery of damages, the Apex Court observed as under:- (Para 12 )

“22. The above discussion indicates the principle on which the court’s power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is exercised to award monetary compensation for contravention of a fundamental right. This was indicated in Rudul Sah [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798 : (1983) 3 SCR 508] and certain further observations therein adverted to earlier, which may tend to minimise the effect of the principle indicated therein, do not really detract from that principle. This is how the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798 : (1983) 3 SCR 508] and others in that line have to be understood and Kasturilal [(1965) 1 SCR 375 : AIR 1965 SC 1039 : (1965) 2 Cri LJ 144] distinguished therefrom.

We have considered this question at some length in view of the doubt raised, at times, about the propriety of awarding compensation in such proceedings, instead of directing the claimant to resort to the ordinary process of recovery of damages by recourse to an action in tort. In the present case, on the finding reached, it is a clear case for award of compensation to the petitioner for the custodial death of her son.”

Advocate Dhruv Gupta appeared for the Pankaj Kumar Sharma. Additional Standing Counsel Hetu Arora Sethi and Advocate Arjun Basra appeared for the State.

The entire judgement of the Delhi high court may be read here:

Related:

Jharkhand HC awards compensation for illegal detention, but not custodial death

HRDA demands justice for Baldev Murmu’s illegal detention

Bom HC awards compensation to victims of illegal detention

The post Police to pay: Delhi HC penalises two police officers (Rs 50k) for illegally detaining man for half an hour appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Trans Yamuna region of the national capital (Northeast Delhi) had witnessed a bloody communal violence following a nationwide protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which claimed 53 lives and left hundreds injured. Majority of those killed were Muslims.

Three years after the worst communal violence in the national capital since Partition, courts in the city have continued to come down heavily on the police — making stinging remarks on the shabby investigation and booking mostly Muslims for the violence that took place in February 2020, on the basis of concocted evidence.

A SAGA OF CONCOCTION, FABRICATION

On August 16, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala at Karkardooma Court discharged three men — Aqeel Ahmed alias Papad, Rayees Khan and Irshad — in a case related to the violence as the judge suspected that the investigating officer had “falsified and manipulated the evidence” and charge sheeted the accused in a “predetermined, mechanical and erroneous manner, with subsequent actions to only cover up the initial wrong actions”.

The court ordered, “… instead of having grave suspicion against accused persons for their involvement in the alleged incidents, I am having suspicion for IO (investigating officer) having manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly.”

On August 24, ASJ Pramachala acquitted a Muslim man who was an accused in a case related to the violence, describing the police statement against him as “artificial”. Also in this order, the court concluded that the police had filed its chargesheet in a “mechanical manner without actually investigating the incidents properly”.

On August 28, the same judge accused the Delhi Police of “befooling” the court by relying on a video for evidence when such a video did not exist, “stalling” the trial and adopting “double standards” in two cases.

Acquitting Noor Mohammed, a resident of Sonia Vihar, on May 30, Metropolitan Magistrate Shirish Aggarwal had said that it appeared that the statement of a prosecution witness (a head constable) was “procured and prepared falsely and belatedly to solve this case.… The police was already aware that its case was fabricated…”.

The above mentioned orders are a few sample of a string of judgments in cases related to the violence, faulting the Delhi Police for planting false evidence and carrying out shabby probes.

Let’s revisit some more cases in which the court discharged or acquitted or gave bail to those accused of violence.

On September 20, 2022, ASJ Pramachala acquitted Noor in another case, observing that his identification as an accused was “probably an outcome of an afterthought development” by the police.

The acquittal was also based on the contradictory statements of the investigation officer.

In the same month, the court also acquitted Mohammad Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid and Mohammad Shahnawaz in a case. The court, while acquitting the said accused, found that the sole testimony of the constable (prosecution witness), who said that he had seen the accused in the crowd, was not found sufficient to admit their presence in the crowd.

Another contradictory statement by an assistant sub-inspector and a head constable prompted Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav to observe in October 2021 that the “police witnesses are lying on oath”.

The head constable had claimed before the judge that he had identified three of the four rioters as Rinku Subziwala, Golu Kashyap and Vikas Kashyap. He had said that he knew the three men as he had been deployed in the area as a beat constable since 2019.

However, another prosecution witness, the assistant sub-inspector, on the contrary, told the court that the three accused — despite being named by the head constable — could not be identified during the investigation.

The judge then noted, “… there is no material on record that efforts were made by the IO to apprehend the said accused persons. Prima facie, one of the police witnesses is lying on oath (that is) punishable under section 193 of the IPC.”

“This is a very sorry state of affairs,” Yadav had said, seeking a report in that regard from the deputy commissioner of police (Northeast Delhi).

In September 2021, ASJ Yadav, while discharging three men, including Shah Alam, brother of former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain, who were accused of rioting, arson and various offences, had pulled up Delhi Police for measurably failing to conduct a proper investigation.

The judge observed in his order that the police “made no effort” to investigate the case and were “merely filing chargesheets without any real effort being made to trace out the eye witnesses, real accused persons and technical evidence”.

Observing that the “investigating agency has merely tried to pull the wool over the court’s eyes” and expressing suspicion that a constable — a witness in the case — had been “planted”, the court had said, “I am not able to restrain myself from observing that when history looks back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is the failure of the investigating agency to conduct proper investigation by using the latest scientific methods, that will surely torment the sentinels of democracy.”

However, months later, the judge, who had passed several orders against the flawed investigation, was transferred.

NewsClick analysed the judgments passed by courts in Delhi adjudicating on matters relating to the riots between 2020 till date. In over 10 orders, the courts have raised serious doubts on the credibility of witness statements. In most of the cases, the prosecution witnesses were police personnel.

In some cases, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were identical — raising doubts about their veracity. The analysis of the orders revealed some of the witnesses had alleged that they were coerced into giving false statements by the police.

In addition to lower courts, higher judiciary too criticised the Delhi Police for its lackadaisical approach in investigating the riots cases.

In October 2020, the Delhi High Court granted bail to one Irshad Ahmad on the grounds that the two police “witnesses seemed to be planted”.

There are several other orders (this and this for an instance) passed by the High Court over the past three years that have strictures against the investigators.

While making scathing remarks against police functioning and prosecution in the cases, the trial court attempted to ameliorate the situation by referring individual cases to senior officers i.e. the concerned DCP and in some cases the Commissioner of Police.

However, these referrals were made with highly critical comments without any action against the erring officer or similar measures to ensure his accountability.

What the courts are calling a “sad and shocking situation”, the judicial orders have consistently reflected a similar tone. But the directions are falling on deaf ears.

IS PRODUCING FALSE EVIDENCE A CRIME?

Fabricating and using false evidence, falsely charging someone with an offence and making false claims in courts are criminal offence against public justice, as per the provisions of Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code.

And the punishment for the offence, depending its severity, varies between a jail term of three years to life imprisonment and even death penalty.

However, despite the Delhi Police being found by different courts indulging in fabricating evidence, there is no accountability of its officers.

WHY SO?

Despite acknowledging perjury on part of the investigators, the judiciary finds itself helpless to prosecute erring police officials who often lie under oath.

The Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution of offences under Chapter XI of the IPC is extremely complicated.

In case of a complaint for such an offence, preliminary inquiries have to be instituted by a court to ascertain whether the complaint is merited.

In addition, the trial of such offences is to be conducted separately from the main trial wherein the alleged false evidence was produced.

It’s not easy for courts to prosecute every case of alleged fabrication and concoction as it would have no time for other matters as Indian judicial system is flooded with such cases.

Even though the courts have acquitted innocent persons, strict action is needed against guilty police for carrying out unfair and serious lapses in investigations, failure to apprehend and bring the real culprits to book and framing of innocents using fake evidence.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post With Delhi Violence Cases Caving in, Who Will Fix Police Accountability for Lying on Oath? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh stated that, the Delhi Police stopped people from attending the ‘We20 meeting’ organised by activists inside a building that belongs to the CPI(M). Ramesh has also tweeted that while he managed to enter at 10.30 am, before Delhi Police began its “operations,” but he had difficulty exiting.

The tweet can be read here:

It is extraordinary that Delhi Police is stopping people from attending the We20 meeting organised by activists representing We, The People, inside a building that belongs to the CPM. The meeting is perfectly peaceful. There are no street protests. I managed to enter at 10:30 am…

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) August 19, 2023

As per a report in The Wire, Political activist Kavita Kabeer, who was part of the organising committee of the event, provided that no prior permission was required as the event is being held in a closed hall. She further added that the police initially urged those attending to leave, but later restricted more people from entering the Surjeet Bhavan. As per a report in the Scroll, over 30 police personnel had arrived at the Surjeet Bhavan. Barricades were also placed around the venue, as per The Wire’s report. 

A public statement has also been released on the attempt to shut down the summit by the Modi administration. The statement provided: “In an unbelievable step, Delhi Police barricaded the gates to Surjeet Bhawan not letting anyone in around 11 am. This when Jairam Ramesh, Aneel Hegde, MP (RS), Medha Patkar (NBA), Vandana Shiva (Navdanya), Anjali Bhardwaj, Nikhil Dey, Thomas Franco, Shaktiman Ghosh and others were analysing how the Modi administration projected to the global leaders of G20 that he is governing India in the best traditions of liberal democracy. Why then was he afraid of a few hundred activists gathering to examine his claims in Delhi that he had to direct the police to disrupt the proceedings!!”

The statement further provides: “What’s happening in Surjeet Bhawan is how the situation is across India. People are not allowed to participate in meaningful democracy to question and hold accountable the Modi administration. Why, even Parliament has been stepped aside and laws that fundamentally protect human rights, environment, biodiversity, privacy, etc. have been rendered meaningless. Anyone who dares to question the government, be it an activist, a trade unionist, academic, even a Minister or Deputy Chief Minister, is targeted with fabricated cases and hauled through the tortuous process of criminal trials, and even locked up under draconian laws. This is how things are in India today.”

The complete statement can be read here:

On Saturday, individuals such Congress General Secretary (Communication) Jairam Ramesh, advocate Vandana Shiva, and Janata Dal (United) MP Aneel Hegde were scheduled to speak. Scheduled talks were on the following issue: ‘Does Modi Administration Really Deliver on Tackling Climate Change, to Protect Environment, Biodiversity & Associated Human Rights, as claimed with G20 & Other Global Fora?’ On the day of inauguration, the inaugural session was attended by a host of political leaders, movement activists, and civil society organisations including Teesta Setalvad, Medha Patkar, Jayati Ghosh, Manoj Jha, Harsh Mander, Arun Kumar, Brinda Karat, Hannan Mollah, Rajeev Gowda among others. Over 500 economists, activists, journalists and politicians from across the country are taking part in it.

A total of nine workshops were planned in the summit to deliberate on key issues pertinent to the G20 agenda such as agriculture and food security, climate crisis and just energy transition, rising inequalities, labour and employment, alternative ideas of development, democracy and dissent and more.

Related:

FIR against student Lois Sophia who shouted anti-BJP slogan on flight quashed: Madras High Court

Attack on freedom of speech: CPI(M) leader receives call from police over meme on Savarkar

IIM faculty members write an open letter to corporate India to ‘De-fund Hate Speech’

Attempts to control academic freedom gives rise to protest by faculty, Ashoka University and IISc an example

FIR against members NSIW fact-finding team, academics & activists

The post Delhi Police attempts to stop meeting critical of the G20 summit, restricts people from entering the venue appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Lokur was speaking at a webinar on ‘The Wrestlers’ Struggle: Accountability of Institutions’ organised by ANHAD and the National Alliance of People’s Movement (NAPM). Other than him, Supreme Court advocates Vrinda Grover and Shahrukh Alam, and senior journalist Bhasha Singh were also a part of the panel. The programme was moderated by Anjali Bhardwaj, a transparency activist and founder of the Delhi-based Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS).

Justice Lokur questioned Delhi Police’s handling of the sexual harassment complaint 

Questioning the modus operandi of the Delhi Police while investigating the allegations, and their demand for “concrete evidence” in the form of audios or visuals, Justice Lokur said, “There was a peaceful candle march at Jantar Mantar in May. Later, the police came up with the idea to talk to 100 witnesses. Why was this necessary? It is not as if there was a whole crowd watching the sexual harassment of these girls. Now, the police say that they need audio and video evidence. What is going on? This is not done on the streets but behind closed doors. The investigation is for finding evidence. Otherwise, why have an investigation? The police could be handed all the material to prosecute the fellow and send him to jail.”

Justice Lokur also expressed his surprise over the criminal charges of disturbing the law and order and rioting that were levelled against the protesting wrestlers after they had been detained by the Delhi Police on the day that the new parliament building was inaugurated. He said that the wrestlers who were been protesting against the alleged inaction of the State machinery were ill-treated by the Police. He said that “The complaint of rioting has not been withdrawn. Theoretically, therefore, now these wrestlers who came there as victims of crime have now become the accused. Look at the turn of events. The police also said that they could not come back to the Jantar Mantar to protest,” the retired judge said. 

He also accused the Delhi Police of being complicit, saying, “It is quite obvious that the police is mixed up. They do not want allegations to be proved and they don’t want the investigation to proceed.” 

He further questioned the fairness of the investigation being conducted in the said case. He provided that it has been reiterated and emphasized by the Supreme Court that the investigation of the police needs to be conducted independently, and yet the sports minister know when the report was going to be submitted. Justice Lokur said said, “When the wrestlers threatened to immerse their medals in Ganga as an act of protest, the sports minister assured that the probe would be completed by June 15. But, the question is, how did the minister know? This is something which only the investigating officer, or his superior, could say. Therefore, something is going on behind the scenes. This is very serious because the Supreme Court has said, in a number of judgments, that no one can interfere with an investigation. Not even the Supreme Court. Whether there has been any interference needs to be investigated, not that anyone will. But this is disconcerting to say the least.”

Justice Lokur expressed dissatisfaction over the decision to close the case by the SC

As stated by Justice Lokur, the Supreme Court of India ought to have monitored the investigation carried out by the Delhi Police into the allegations of sexual assault and criminal intimidation Singh. Notably, the women wrestlers had moved the top court seeking registration of an FIR against Singh. On April 28, the Delhi Police had informed a Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud that an FIR had been registered in the matter. On May 4, the Court closed the wrestlers’ petition taking note of the fact that the Delhi Police has already registered an FIR. The Supreme Court had then turned down women wrestlers’ demand for a court-monitored probe into their allegations of sexual harassment against Singh and closed the proceedings on their petition “for now”, saying an FIR had already been lodged against him. However, it had given liberty to the petitioners to move the jurisdictional magistrate court or the high court for further relief.

Criticising the Court’s approach, the former Supreme Court judge said that the court should have asked the Delhi Police as to why the wrestlers “had” to move the Supreme Court to get an FIR filed in the first place, and should have monitored whether the police is performing their other duties or not. In addition to this, Justice Lokur also expressed his concerns about the fairness of the police investigation, highlighting, in particular, the ‘threat perception’ that  which the Supreme Court had itself acknowledged when it directed one of the complainants, a minor girl, to be provided with security:

“The petition before the Supreme Court questioned why an FIR had not been registered despite it being a cognisable offence. The court issued notice to the police in April and then they come out very magnanimously and agreed to register an FIR. This suggests that there was some substance in the complaint. The first thing the Supreme Court ought to have done is ask why an FIR had not been lodged before the matter was listed, which it did not do. In an affidavit, the court was also informed that there was a threat to the life of the wrestlers. On the next date of hearing, the bench directed police protection to be given which suggests that the life threat indicated to SC was perhaps real. Before the hearing, there was a scuffle that took place in Jantar Mantar where some drunk police officials manhandled the wrestlers, which the court must have been aware of since news about the incident was published in the newspaper. However, during the hearing, the bench said that the petitioners could approach the jurisdictional magistrate or the Delhi High Court in case of anything further. This should not have been said by the Supreme Court.”

Justice Lokur proceeded to substantiate his stance by saying:

“The whole thing suggests that the Delhi Police was slow and the wrestlers were under a threat, which the Supreme Court accepted. Keeping in mind the delay in lodging an FIR, even though it was a case of aggravated sexual assault, and the threat perception, the Supreme Court ought to have monitored the investigation so that nothing goes wrong. The Supreme Court has in the past monitored investigations, not with the view to see that the persons against whom the cases are filed are convicted, but to see that things don’t go wrong, especially in cases involving politically well-connected persons such as the Jain Hawala case in the 90s…In some other cases also because of the nature of the case or persons involved, the court monitors the investigation to see that it does not get derailed. In my view, the court did not fully appreciate the position when they decided to not monitor the investigation. I think they should have.”

Justice Lokur on the Oversight Committee:

Besides this, the former judge also questioned the government’s refusal to make the report of the oversight committee publicly available. According to him, the main driving point behind the wrestlers approaching the Supreme Court was the failure of the government to ‘make public’ the report of an oversight committee established to look into the allegations against Singh as well as the Delhi Police’s refusal to file a first information report (FIR). 

 “The contents of the report were a big secret to everyone, but why? An adverse presumption could be drawn here, as lawyers put it. The first thing that would have been done if the report was in favour of the accused person was that it would have been made public. Therefore, the first presumption is that the report is against the person against whom allegations have been made. The refusal to make the report public, and register and FIR were what drove the wrestlers to protest on the streets.”

Justice Lokur said that the complainants were re-victimised in this case

Earlier this month, in a shocking yet no so surprising turn of events, the father of the underage wrestler, on the strength of whose complaint a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was registered against Singh gave another statement alleging that no sexual harassment had been suffered by the minor wrestlers at the hands of Singh. He said that he and his daughter had made ‘false allegations’ against the WFI president, while also openly talking about the threats and fear their family was facing. With respect to this, Justice Lokur said:

“The minor was interrogated in the presence of four constables for about five hours – till 9:30 PM. What was the need to interrogate for this long when she has already given a written statement? This is nothing but re-victimisation. You have said this. Now, prove what you have said. This is what re-victimisation is all about and all courts have come down heavily against it. Why could they not have proceeded on the basis of the statement made by the minor to a magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC? Another girl was taken to the office, which they said was the scene of the crime. The scene of the crime is the person! It is the complainants’ bodily integrity that has been tampered with. What else is re-victimisation?”

With respect to the police’s intention to secure testimonies of witnesses from foreign countries where the crime was allegedly committed by Brij Bhushan, Justice Lokur said, “Can this be secured by June 15? The sports minister’s assurance has no meaning. Secondly, what kind of information are they hoping to get? These incidents – the sexual assault, stalking – did not take place in public.”

Justice Lokur further said that “Rather than investigating the offence that has allegedly taken place, it seems directed to showing that the accused is innocent and that the wrestlers – including the minor – are saying something false. This appears to be the purpose. Investigations must be fair and unbiased. They cannot take place when persons are under threat. Assuming the matter goes to court, any defence lawyer worth their salt will be able to shred the case to pieces with this background. They will either say that the accused is not guilty or is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. That is the end of the story.”

Justice Lokur on arresting POSCO and sexual harassment accused Singh

“It appears to me,” the retired judge said, “That what is going to happen is a foregone conclusion.” He added, “Brij Bhushan is a powerful, well-connected person, who has not been arrested despite the allegation being one of aggravated sexual assault. He is out there making speeches. Evidence shows that witnesses have been threatened – maybe not by Brij Bhushan directly. Evidence is being tampered with, with the minor and her father going back on their initial statement being an indication of this. In this country, even a person who does not have a passport is arrested, despite not being a flight risk. All the events must be looked at as a whole, and not in isolation.”

During the said webinar, Justice Lokur also pointed out that the WFI did not have a committee to deal with complaints of sexual harassment, as has been mandated by law.

(This copy is based on reports published by LiveLaw and other media)

Related:

Protesting wrestlers will resume stir, say govt not ready to arrest WFI chief by June 15

“I changed my statement because I was scared, my family is living under constant threat”: father of the minor wrestlers’ complainant

From deathly silence to violence: The journey of wrestlers struggling for justice

Protests erupt at Delhi police violent crackdown on Women Wrestlers, FIR, and nationwide outrage

Attempt to Drown out Wrestlers’ Protest with Song and Dance About ‘Temple of Democracy’

When Will Society Hold Men Accountable for Patriarchy

WFI leadership accused of sexual harassment by Indian women wrestlers, absence of redressal mechanisms the focus

Battling the Indian sports industry: the cries for justice by women

The post Clear case of re-victimisation: Former SC judge Madan B Lokur on Delhi Police’s handling of women wrestlers case appeared first on SabrangIndia.