Delhi Police Affidavit: Numbers Abound, But Accountability for Misconduct Still Vague
The 42-page affidavit filed by the Delhi Police in the Supreme Court late on August 17 is rich in statistics — detailing barricades used, women officers deployed, and facial recognition matches. But it remains silent on what the police hierarchy has done to investigate and fix accountability for officers who allegedly misbehaved with women students and protestors.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court assured petitioners' counsel that a proposed high-powered committee would examine allegations that plainclothes police personnel sexually molested women protestors. Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading the Bench, said legal action would follow based on the committee's report.
The affidavit said over 3,600 barricades were used to protect vulnerable locations, and more than 4,600 women police personnel were deployed during the protest period. A facial recognition system matched 2,873 faces with those in police databases. The police also said that between July 20 and July 26, seven motor vehicles were stolen, 66 other thefts were reported, and 123 lost reports were lodged — asserting that the protest was infiltrated by criminals and anti-social elements.
However, the affidavit is less forthcoming on the use of force by police. It stated that the court may appoint a high-powered committee to examine all issues related to this aspect. The deponent was advised not to deal with allegations against police officials and reiterated that force was used in a graded manner. The police noted that over 240 personnel, including women officers, were injured in the violence on July 20, while around 218 protestors were injured and received treatment.
The affidavit described the background to the protests and police action on July 20 as having considerable significance. The agitation began on June 6, 2026, and on June 17, Saurav Das of the Cockroach Janta Party sought permission for a peaceful demonstration on June 20, with an expected gathering of 500-600 people. Permission was granted as a one-time exception, but protestors did not vacate the area after the scheduled time. The numbers swelled from a few dozen to a large gathering of students, political workers, and activists.
Events took an unprecedented turn with the commencement of the monsoon session of Parliament. No permission was sought or granted for a 'Sansad Chalo' march on July 20. The police said the march turned aggressive when a section of protestors attempted to breach barricades to advance towards Parliament. Police had to prevent damage to vital installations like Parliament, Rashtrapati Bhavan, and other high-security locations. Videos on social media, according to the affidavit, show police personnel being beaten, women officers manhandled, and government vehicles burnt.
At one point on July 20, over 30,000 protestors faced only 5,000 uniformed officers, the affidavit said. It claimed police personnel were attacked without provocation. Yet, the affidavit notably avoids addressing the alleged misconduct by plainclothes officers, leaving the question of accountability to the proposed committee. The court's assurance that the committee will investigate these allegations offers a path forward, but the police's own reluctance to engage with them raises concerns about institutional transparency.
