Three days after the July 20 protests in New Delhi, where videos surfaced showing the Delhi Police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) using pellet guns and excessive force against unarmed demonstrators, neither the Delhi Police nor the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) have issued statements acknowledging the incidents or clarifying their stance. The controversy erupted following the release of numerous videos depicting police personnel allegedly employing pellet guns, lathis, and shock batons against protesters marching toward Parliament under the banner of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). These videos, shared widely on social media, have sparked public outrage and prompted legal action. The Delhi High Court intervened on July 22, directing the Centre and the Delhi Police to respond to public interest litigation (PIL) petitions alleging excessive force during the protest. The court also mandated the preservation of all video evidence, including CCTV footage and any recordings related to the July 20 incident. Over 100 police and RAF personnel were reportedly injured during the crackdown. The court listed another case involving the CJP protest for hearing on July 24. The PILs allege that the police used disproportionate force, including physical assault, tear gas, and electric batons, against protesters who were largely non-violent. Among the victims, two individuals reportedly sustained pellet injuries. One, Sahil Lochab, a 19-year-old, faces the risk of permanent vision loss in his right eye due to a pellet penetrating his pupil. His family stated that he is currently receiving treatment at a government hospital. Another individual, whose identity has not been disclosed, was hit by a pellet near a major blood vessel in the neck, raising concerns over potential long-term health complications. According to reports, the pellets were fired by RAF personnel, and the use of such weaponry has drawn comparisons to previous instances in regions like Jammu & Kashmir and Manipur, where similar tactics led to severe injuries and public outcry. The Delhi Police initially denied the use of pellet guns, asserting that such weapons were not part of their standard equipment. However, the CRPF, which oversees the RAF, confirmed that pellet guns and shock batons are included in the RAF’s arsenal and were deployed during the July 20 operation. An official from the CRPF stated that they are verifying media reports regarding the use of pellet guns, although no formal action has been taken yet. The MHA, meanwhile, has yet to comment publicly on the allegations. Eyewitness accounts from protesters add to the gravity of the situation. Eenesh, a 26-year-old from Chhattisgarh, described how he and hundreds of others were pushed forward by a massive force, resulting in a collision with barricades and subsequent police intervention. He claimed that none of the protesters attacked the police and that the police began using batons after the initial push. He also rejected the police claim that protesters had thrown stones, stating that the protest area lacked space for such actions. Eenesh, who has been in Delhi since June 20, continues to participate in the protests despite sustaining injuries. Legal representatives for the petitioners presented compelling evidence, including over 130 videos documenting the events. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan highlighted that many of the personnel involved were not properly identified, as some were not wearing name badges or uniforms. He also noted that certain officers, including Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police Sandeep Lamba, were seen using excessive force, including slapping a woman who was not involved in any violent activity. The court has requested that the Delhi Police provide detailed information on the deployment of personnel and the use of specific equipment during the protest. The Delhi High Court emphasized that the incident cannot be considered an isolated occurrence and requires a comprehensive response from the authorities. It ordered the preservation of all evidence and set a hearing date for September 11. Meanwhile, the government’s counsel argued that the demonstration had turned violent, citing injuries to both police and protesters. However, the court maintained that the allegations warrant a formal inquiry rather than relying on individual complaints. The ongoing legal proceedings underscore the growing pressure on the administration to address the concerns of the protesters and ensure accountability.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
India
