Delhi High Court Calls for Police Footage After Protest Clashes

On a breezy Wednesday in late July, the Delhi High Court stepped in after a wave of protests turned violent, demanding that the police preserve every piece of video evidence – from body‑cameras to street‑cameras – that captured the clashes. The bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, didn’t just ask for the footage; it set a clear timetable, asking the Delhi Police to file a written reply within four weeks and warning that petitioners could submit a rejoinder thereafter.

Two public‑interest litigations sit at the heart of the order. The first stems from a “Parliament march” on 20 July, when students, doctors and supporters of the Chief Justice of India (CJP) gathered near the Parliament House and were met with a lathicharge. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioners, argued that the crowd was peaceful, received no warning and was suddenly beaten with lathis – some, he suggested, even fitted with nails.

The second case concerns the forcible removal of activist Sonam Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar on 18 July. Counsel N. Hariharan painted a harrowing picture of “brutal lathis” striking not only adults but also children, urging the court to hold the police accountable.

Police records, as reported by The Hindu, say the 20 July charge left 38 injured people at Lady Hardinge Medical College and about 65 more at Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. Whether those numbers tell the whole story is a point of contention – the petitioners maintain that the force used was excessive and unprovoked.

Just a day before the court’s formal order, the same bench had refused an urgent listing of the PILs, telling counsel, “Don’t drag the Court into all this. It will come up tomorrow.” That terse remark underscored the judiciary’s willingness to let the matter breathe while still keeping a tight rein on procedural deadlines.

The next hearing is slated for 11 September, giving both sides a few weeks to marshal arguments, submit additional evidence and, hopefully, narrow the gap between protestors’ rights and law‑enforcement’s duties.

For now, Delhi’s streets remain quiet, but the courtroom drama reminds everyone that in a democracy, even a single video clip can become a pivotal piece of evidence – provided the courts insist it be kept safe.