The Delhi Police on Thursday told the Supreme Court that protesters detained during the October 10 Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) protest in Jantar Mantar were kept at makeshift centres, served “hot, fresh and good meals” and released within two to six hours, legal news website Bar and Bench reported.
The details emerged in affidavits filed by Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar in a contempt of court case concerning restrictions imposed during the CJP protest. Kumar also said that political leaders were seated in station house officer (SHO) chambers and offered tea, coffee, meals and other refreshments.
The Delhi top cop tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” to the Supreme Court, while denying any wilful or deliberate violation of its directions. He has sought discharge of the contempt notice issued against him.
In the affidavits filed before a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Kumar maintained that there had been “no non-compliance much less any wilful or deliberate non-compliance” with the court's orders.
WHAT DOES THE CONTEMPT PETITION SAY?
The contempt petition alleged that the police violated the Supreme Court's October 9 directions by restricting entry and exit at metro stations, particularly GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya in north Delhi, during the CJP protest.
The court had directed that metro services operate normally, internet facilities remain unhindered, barricades be reviewed, and peaceful assemblies not be subjected to illegal detention outside areas where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in force.
The court also ordered the removal of a Section 163 notice board from the Supreme Court premises, Bar and Bench reported.
On internet restrictions, the police said cellular internet services had been suspended owing to the law and order situation, following a request to the Centre. The restriction, according to the affidavit, covered an area within four kilometres of Raisina Hill. The police maintained that internet facilities otherwise remained unhindered.
On metro services, the police said restrictions were initially imposed at 57 stations. Following the Supreme Court's October 9 order, the number was reduced to 45 out of the Delhi Metro network's 303 stations, or around 15 per cent. Normal services resumed at 10 pm on October 10, the affidavit said.
Commissioner Kumar also maintained that no notice warning against protests had been put up inside the Supreme Court premises, adding that the court complex could not be allowed to become a protest site.
POLICE CITE PROTESTS, LAW AND ORDER CONCERNS
In its response, the Delhi Police said protesters were removed under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act and Section 172 of the BNSS only in areas where prohibitory orders under Section 163 were in force, according to Bar and Bench.
The affidavit also referred to the CJP's earlier protest at Jantar Mantar. According to the police, the party had received permission for a one-day demonstration on June 20 but continued the protest for 36 days.
The police further alleged that a 'Chalo Sansad' march on July 20 was held without permission and drew well over 35,000 people, exceeding the agreed limit of 1,000. More than 240 police personnel were injured during the march, the affidavit claimed.
Commissioner Kumar also cited Congress protests held on October 6, 7 and 8, alleging that these were “fuelled by persons adorning cover of 'freelance journalism'.”
According to the affidavit, the CJP's October 7 letter was treated as an intimation rather than a formal application and was rejected on October 9. The same day, Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan wrote to police chiefs across states and Union Territories, citing intelligence inputs that the party intended to disobey statutory orders and directing preventive measures.
The Delhi Police Commissioner described his affidavit as an interim response, saying a lack of time had prevented him from addressing other pending petitions. He also alleged that an “incorrect narrative is being sought to be propagated” about the police action.
- Ends