The Supreme Court on Monday declined to impose restrictions on the proposed September 5 march in Delhi by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), saying matters concerning law and order should be handled by the appropriate authorities.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said there was no basis at present to assume that the planned mobilisation would become violent.
The court emphasised that all participants were expected to remain peaceful, follow the law and respect each other’s rights.
What did the Supreme Court say about the September 5 march?
The court was hearing petitions seeking restrictions on large-scale protests and marches in security-sensitive parts of Lutyens’ Delhi, including India Gate and Central Vista.
The petitioners had also sought postponement or modification of the September 5 march until after the BRICS Summit, scheduled to be held in Delhi on September 12 and 13.
However, the bench declined to intervene in the proposed mobilisation, observing that decisions about permissions, restrictions and security arrangements fall within the domain of the Centre and Delhi government.
The court said authorities must determine what is legally permissible and take appropriate measures to maintain public order.
Why was the September 5 march proposed?
The CJP announced the march on August 24, describing it as a peaceful three-kilometre mobilisation from India Gate to the Delhi Police headquarters.
The protest is being led by families of students who died by suicide following the cancellation and subsequent re-test of the NEET examination. It also involves people alleging excessive police action during the July 20 agitation.
The organisers say the march is intended to protest what they describe as the Centre’s failure to honour assurances that resulted in the withdrawal of a 36-day agitation at Jantar Mantar.
The All India Students’ Association has also extended support to the proposed march and backed demands including the withdrawal of FIRs against student protesters and an inquiry into allegations of pellet and bullet firing during the earlier demonstrations.
Petitioners raise security concerns ahead of BRICS Summit
One of the petitioners argued that the organisers had announced the September 5 mobilisation without obtaining police permission.
The lawyer also urged the court to defer the march until after the BRICS Summit, arguing that any disturbance in Delhi shortly before an international gathering could attract significant global attention.
The Supreme Court, however, said it was not the appropriate forum to decide such law-and-order questions at this stage.
The bench indicated that the petitioners could approach the court again if an alarming or untoward situation arose, provided the issue fell within the court’s judicial domain.
Supreme Court points to high-powered panel on July 20 violence
The court also directed attention to the five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) examining allegations arising from the July 20 protest.
The committee was constituted on August 18 after the Supreme Court found that allegations of excessive use of force during the agitation prima facie warranted an independent inquiry.
The panel is headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy and includes Justice (retired) Ravi Shankar Jha, Justice (retired) Shalinder Kaur, former CBI director Rishi Kumar Shukla and retired Meghalaya DGP LR Bishnoi.
What will the HPEC investigate?
The committee has been tasked with examining allegations concerning police use of pellet guns, electric batons, lathis and tear gas, as well as whether the force used was proportionate.
Its mandate also covers allegations of violence by protesters, injuries to police personnel, damage to public property, blanket prohibitory orders, surveillance and the invocation of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The panel will also examine allegations of targeted violence, harassment and molestation of women protesters, along with medical and other assistance provided to victims and the possibility of interim compensation.
It has been directed to preserve and examine CCTV and drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videos, wireless communication records and PCR call logs connected with the protests.
The committee can receive documentary evidence and representations from affected individuals, including anonymous complaints where necessary to protect complainants and witnesses.
Supreme Court to monitor inquiry
The Supreme Court has made clear that the HPEC will function under its supervision.
The bench on Monday said petitioners could submit their representations and suggestions to the committee rather than seeking a parallel investigation from the court at this stage.
The matter has been posted for September 10, with the Centre and Delhi government directed to be served copies of the petition. The HPEC will also be served with the relevant petitions.
The Centre and Delhi government have said they have no objection to an independent and fair inquiry while denying allegations of police excesses.
