The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has raised pointed questions about the legality and justification of the use of pellet guns against peaceful protesters during a demonstration in Delhi on July 20. The party’s spokesperson, Saurav Das, challenged the Supreme Court’s stance on the issue, questioning whether the police action was indeed necessary given the nature of the protest. Das argued that the Supreme Court should have scrutinized whether the circumstances on July 20 truly warranted the deployment of pellet guns, especially considering reports of severe injuries, including permanent vision loss among some protesters. He emphasized that the Home Minister bore ultimate responsibility for overseeing such actions and called for the judiciary to thoroughly examine the matter rather than merely endorsing the police response. The controversy arose after the Supreme Court heard petitions concerning the Delhi Police’s use of pellet guns during a student protest that marched from Jantar Mantar to Parliament. The CJP maintains that the protest was peaceful and that the police response was excessive. According to the party, the police resorted to lathi charges and the use of pellet guns to halt the procession. Das highlighted that the central issue was not solely about the use of pellet guns in exceptional circumstances but whether the events of July 20 met that threshold in the first place. His comments followed the CJP’s ongoing scrutiny of the incident in both political and legal arenas, including criticism of an interim Supreme Court order that, in their view, might allow continued investigations against protesters despite assurances from the government that First Information Reports (FIRs) would be withdrawn. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi intensified the political pressure by demanding the removal of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, accusing him of authorizing the “brutality carried out against students” during the protest. At a press conference, Gandhi asserted that either Shah had ordered the use of pellet guns, shock batons, lathi charges, and tear gas against the students, rendering him “culpable of brutalization,” or he had been unaware of the police actions, which would make him “incompetent.” Either way, Gandhi insisted that Shah needed to step down. His remarks sparked protests within the Lok Sabha, leading to an adjournment. During his speech, Gandhi also criticized the RSS for influencing the education system and suggested that the real power behind the Education Ministry lay with the RSS, not former Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who had resigned following the protests. The Delhi Police has taken steps to address the aftermath of the protests, registering an FIR against social media platform X for allegedly sharing defamatory and objectionable content about Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the demonstrations. The police have also requested that X remove content deemed derogatory toward constitutional heads. Additionally, the police identified 450 social media accounts suspected of spreading deepfake videos and AI-generated content during the protests. Meanwhile, the Delhi Police denied using pellet guns against protesters, although reports indicated that the Rapid Action Force, a unit of the Central Reserve Police Force, had deployed the weapons as part of its riot-control equipment. Families of injured Delhi Police personnel have spoken out, expressing concern over the lack of attention given to their plight amidst allegations of police brutality against students. At a press conference, the daughter of a Delhi Police sub-inspector recounted how her father was “almost lynched” near the Jantar Mantar stage during the protest. She described the harrowing experience of seeing her father, who had previously served in the Indian Navy, in a severely injured condition. Similarly, the wife of an assistant commissioner of police detailed the emotional distress of witnessing her husband return home injured after the protest. Both families called for accountability for those responsible for the violence and urged authorities to ensure justice for the injured officers. The CJP concluded its 36-day-long protest at Jantar Mantar after the government agreed to its key demands, including the resignation of former Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, the withdrawal of FIRs, an assurance of no retaliatory action, and a commitment to consider broader examination reforms. Despite these concessions, the political and legal debates surrounding the use of force during the protests continue, with the Supreme Court yet to provide a definitive resolution on the legitimacy of the police actions. The situation remains under close watch, with expectations that the judicial process will determine the extent of accountability for those involved.
11 izvještaja
The WireNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 90Objektivnost 70prije 7 danaGlavni sudac Indije (CJP) objavio je otkazivanje planiranog prosvjeda na Jantar Mantaru nakon što je primijetio da se tamo okupila radostna gužva. Tijekom konferencije za novinare s ministrima, CJP je iznio specifične uvjete i uvjete povezane s situacijom, što ukazuje na promjenu pristupa u rješavanju pitanja. Odluka je donesena usred povećanog javnog osjećaja i čini se da odražava napore za rješavanje zabrinutosti uz održavanje reda.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se prikazuju postupci i izjave CJP-a bez otvorene favoriziranja bilo kojeg posebnog političkog stajališta.
Zašto činjenice (90): The article accurately reports on the Supreme Court's directive to release minors and students with no criminal record, referencing the petitions and the court's observations. It aligns with the primary source document's mention of the Supreme Court and CJI Surya Kant's involvement.
Zašto objektivnost (70): The article maintains a neutral tone, reporting the court's decision without overt bias. However, it emphasizes the court's concern about police excesses, which may slightly tilt the narrative toward the protesters' perspective.
Scroll.inNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 90Objektivnost 65prije 3 danaKongresni vođa Rahul Gandhi pozvao je na uklanjanje središnjeg ministra unutarnjih poslova Amit Shaha, optužujući ga da je odgovoran za nasilje nad studentima tijekom prosvjeda u Delhiju 20. srpnja. Gandhi je tvrdio da je Shah odobrio nasilje ili ga nije spriječio, navodeći da bi Shah u oba slučaja trebao podnijeti ostavku. Njegovi komentari doveli su do prosvjeda u Lok Sabhi, što je rezultiralo odlaganjem. U međuvremenu, Lok Sabha je donijela amandman na zakon protiv curenja papira, uvodeći oštrije kazne za pogrešno ponašanje na ispitima, uključujući zatvor i novčane kazne.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): Članak predstavlja optužbe koje je izrazio istaknuti opozicijski vođa, Rahul Gandhi, protiv ministra vladajuće stranke, Amit Shaha, u vezi s nasilnim akcijama tijekom studenata prosvjeda.
Zašto činjenice (90): This article provides detailed information about the bill's provisions, including the increased penalties and the establishment of special courts. It accurately quotes Rahul Gandhi's statements and mentions the passage of the bill via a voice vote. However, it omits some procedural details present i
Zašto objektivnost (65): The article presents Rahul Gandhi's claims prominently and uses strong language such as 'brutality carried out against students' and 'ordered the students of India to be shot.' This framing may bias the narrative towards the opposition's viewpoint without balancing it with the government's rebuttals
"Može li se pellet pištolj upotrijebiti protiv mirnih prosvjednika?"Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) kritizirao je stajalište Vrhovnog suda o upotrebi peletnih pištolja tijekom studenatskog prosvjeda u Delhiju 20. srpnja, tvrdeći da je policijski odgovor bio neproporcionalan i da je sud propustio temeljito ispitati opravdanost upotrebe takve sile protiv mirnih prosvjednika. Glasnogovornik CJP-a Saurav Das upitao je da li su okolnosti u to vrijeme opravdale upotrebu peletnih pištolja, što je rezultiralo ozljedama i navodnim trajnim oštećenjem očiju. Naglasio je da ministar unutarnjih poslova, a ne policija, treba biti odgovoran za odobrenje upotrebe sile.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se kritici CJP-a opisuju kao legitimni izazov vladinom autoritetu i poziva na odgovornost, naglašavajući potencijalnu štetu uzrokovanu upotrebom pištolja.
Zašto činjenice (90): The article accurately reports on Rahul Gandhi's allegations against Amit Shah, including his call for sacking the Home Minister and an investigation. It provides specific quotes and context, aligning with the broader narrative of the protests and the political fallout.
Zašto objektivnost (60): The article adopts a strongly critical tone toward Amit Shah, presenting Gandhi's accusations as credible and justified. This introduces a clear bias in favor of the protesters and against the government officials involved.
'Moj otac je zamalo linčan kod pozornice Jantar Mantar': Rođaci policajca iz Delhija ozlijeđeni tijekom prosvjedaObitelji policajaca iz Delhija ozlijeđenih tijekom nedavnih prosvjeda u New Delhiju govorili su na konferenciji za novinare, navodeći da su njihovi voljeni bili podvrgnuti teškim napadima gomile tijekom prosvjeda.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se incident prikazuje kao slučaj policijske brutalnosti nad studentima, naglašavajući traumu policijskih obitelji i pozivajući na odgovornost odgovornih za nasilje.
Zašto činjenice (85): The article accurately reports on the CJP's challenge to the Supreme Court's stance on the use of pellet guns during protests. It includes quotes from the CJP spokesperson and references to the legal proceedings, aligning with the broader context of the protests and the judicial response.
Zašto objektivnost (65): The article presents the CJP's argument in a sympathetic light, emphasizing their claim that the police response was disproportionate. While it does not overtly take sides, the framing of the issue suggests support for the protesters' perspective.
Times of IndiaNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 80Objektivnost 70prije 3 danaTijekom sjednice Lok Sabhe, vođa Kongresa Rahul Gandhi optužio je ministra unutarnjih poslova Amit Shah da je odgovoran za navodnu prekomjernu upotrebu sile od strane policije protiv prosvjednika NEET-a. Gandhi je tvrdio da je Shah ili izravno naredio upotrebu peletnih pištolja, šok palica, lathičara i suzavaca ili nije bio svjestan radnji policije, nazivajući ga krivim ili nesposobnim. Pozvao je na Shahovo uklanjanje i istragu pod nadzorom Vrhovnog suda o korištenju smrtonosne sile protiv studenata. Vlada je izazvala Gandhija da pruži dokaze za svoje tvrdnje ili se ispriča, tvrdeći da su policijske radnje obavljene pod sudskim nalogom i s najvećom suzdržanjem.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se prikazuju optužbe Rahula Gandhija protiv Amit Shaha i vlade u vezi s policijskim represijom protiv NEET prosvjednika.
Zašto činjenice (80): The article covers the controversy around Rahul Gandhi's accusations against Amit Shah and the government's response. It includes direct quotes from both sides but lacks comprehensive details on the bill's content compared to other sources. Some context is missing regarding the broader implications
Zašto objektivnost (70): The article presents both sides of the argument but uses phrases like 'bedlam' and 'riling up treasury benches' which may imply a negative view of the government's actions. It also frames the government's challenge to Rahul Gandhi as aggressive, potentially influencing the reader's interpretation.
The HinduNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 80Objektivnost 65prije 3 danaRahul Gandhi, vođa opozicije u Lok Sabhi, kritizirao je vladu i RSS tijekom parlamentarne sjednice 29. srpnja 2026. u vezi s nedavnim studentskim prosvjedom. Njegove primjedbe, koje su uključivale optužbe da RSS kontrolira ministarstvo obrazovanja i utječe na vodstvo sveučilišta, izazvale su jake reakcije vladajuće NDA-e. Gandhi je tvrdio da je Dharmendra Pradhan, bivši ministar obrazovanja Unije, bio samo simbol i da RSS učinkovito vodi ministarstvo. Njegovi komentari doveli su do prekida, zahtjeva za izvinjenjem i dva puta odlaganja sjednice.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): Iako je sadržaj uravnotežen u predstavljanju reakcija obje strane, naglasak na Gandhijevim optužbama i prikaz RSS-a kao ključne
Zašto činjenice (80): The article accurately reports Rahul Gandhi's speech in the Lok Sabha, including his allegations against the government and RSS. Cross-source consensus supports these claims, though some details like the exact nature of the protests and the extent of the expunged content are not elaborated upon. The
Zašto objektivnost (65): The article leans toward the opposition narrative, presenting Rahul Gandhi's perspective without significant counterbalance. The use of terms like 'scathing attack' and 'sharp rebuttals' introduces a biased tone. The framing emphasizes Gandhi's accusations rather than providing a balanced view of th
Scroll.inNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 80Objektivnost 60prije 3 dana Amit Shah mora biti otpušten jer je naredio "brutalnost protiv studenata" tijekom prosvjeda: Rahul GandhiRahul Gandhi, vođa opozicije u Indiji, pozvao je na uklanjanje središnjeg ministra unutarnjih poslova Amit Shah-a, optužujući ga da je odobrio brutalne taktike protiv studenata tijekom prosvjeda u Delhiju 20. srpnja. Gandhi je tvrdio da je Shah ili naredio upotrebu peletnih pištolja, latisa s čavlima i električnih palica protiv prosvjednika ili nije uspio kontrolirati situaciju, što ga čini nekompetentnim ili krivim. Prosvjedi, koji su u početku izazvali zahtjevi za ostavkom ispitnih vlasti, eskalirali su nakon što je policija nasilno pritvorila aktivistu Sonama Wangchuka.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se opisuje kontroverza oko potencijalne odgovornosti Amit Shaha za nasilne akcije protiv prosvjednika, naglašavajući odgovornost ministra unutarnjih poslova.
Zašto činjenice (80): The article reports on the CJP's calls off protest and the terms laid out in a press conference with ministers. It provides specific details about the events and the outcomes, aligning with the broader context of the protests and their resolution.
Zašto objektivnost (60): The article presents the CJP's actions and statements in a manner that highlights their success and the government's response. While it does not explicitly take sides, the framing suggests a positive outcome for the protesters.
The WireNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 70Objektivnost 65prije 3 dana Od kada je izabrani predstavnik iznad ispitivanja, pita CJP kao što je Delhi policija pitala X da skine postove koji ciljaju vladine glaveČlanak govori o pravnoj i političkoj kontroverzi u kojoj glavni sudac Indije (CJP) postavlja pitanje jesu li izabrani predstavnici iznad nadzora, dok policija Delhija traži od platforme društvenih medija X da ukloni objave koje ciljaju vladine dužnosnike.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se stavlja naglasak na pitanje pravosuđa imunitet izabranih dužnosnika, što sugerira kritiku izvršnog preopterećenja i potrebu za odgovornosti.
Zašto činjenice (70): Similar to item 1, this article touches on the CJP's stance regarding elected officials and the police's actions. It provides context around the NEET leak protests but doesn't delve into the specifics of police force mentioned in the primary source.
Zašto objektivnost (65): The tone leans slightly towards supporting the CJP's position, implying that the government is attempting to control narratives. There is a subtle bias in favor of the protesters.
The WireNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 70Objektivnost 65prije 3 dana Od kada je izabrani predstavnik iznad ispitivanja, pita CJP kao što je Delhi policija pitala X da skine postove koji ciljaju vladine glaveČlanak govori o pravnoj i političkoj kontroverzi u kojoj indijski vrhovni sudac (CJP) postavlja pitanje jesu li izabrani predstavnici iznad nadzora, dok policija u Delhiju traži od platforme društvenih medija X da ukloni poruke koje ciljaju vladine dužnosnike.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se stavlja naglasak na pitanje pravosuđa imunitet izabranih dužnosnika, što sugerira kritiku izvršnog nadmetanja i potrebu za odgovornosti.
Zašto činjenice (70): The article mentions the CJP's question about elected representatives being above scrutiny and the Delhi Police requesting removal of posts targeting government heads. This aligns with the broader context of the CJP protests but lacks specific details about police force or the primary source documen
Zašto objektivnost (65): The article presents the situation from a critical perspective, suggesting that the government is trying to suppress dissent. There is a slight tilt towards the CJP's viewpoint, though not overtly biased.
The PrintNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 50Objektivnost 55prije 11 danaSveindijski studentski savez (AISA) optužio je službenike za provođenje zakona da su koristili prekomjernu silu protiv sudionika tijekom prosvjeda "Sansad Chalo".
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se navode policijske brutalnosti kao legitimna zabrinutost koju je podigla studentska organizacija, naglašavajući potrebu za odgovornost.
Zašto činjenice (50): The article references the allegations of police brutality but does not provide specific details about the pellet gun injuries or the broader context of the CJP protest. It lacks alignment with the primary source document's detailed account of the incidents.
Zašto objektivnost (55): The article appears to take a sympathetic stance toward the protesters without clearly presenting opposing viewpoints. It focuses on the allegations of police brutality without offering a balanced perspective.
'Kaznite zločince, oslobodite studente nakon provjere': Žena policajca iz Delhija ozlijeđena tijekom prosvjeda Jantar MantarČlanovi obitelji policajaca iz Delhija ozlijeđenih tijekom protesta "Chalo Sansad" 20. srpnja, koji je organizirala CJP, održali su konferenciju za novinare u Delhiju, navodeći policijsku brutalnost i upotrebu peletnih pištolja. Podijelili su izvještaje o ozljedama svojih bližnjih, uključujući i suprugu pomoćnika podinspektora koji je pozvao na kažnjavanje "zločincima" uključenih u ometanje prosvjeda predvođenih studentima, dok je pozvao na puštanje studenata nakon provjere. Kći podinspektora opisala je da je njezin otac teško ozlijeđen i hospitaliziran, dok je drugi član obitelji ispričao traumu od viđenja ozlijeđenog policajca koji se vraća kući. Sud u Delhiju razmatra zahtjev u vezi s upotrebom sile od strane policije i osoblja RAF-a, a parlamentarne rasprave o ovom pitanju su u tijeku.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): Članak prikazuje incident iz perspektive obitelji policije u Delhiju, naglašavajući optužbe o policijskoj brutalnosti i potrebu za odgovornošću protiv "zločinaca".
★
Neka vijesti ostanu poštene.
ObjectiveNews financiraju čitatelji i bez oglasa je – pristranost vam pokazujemo, ne skrivamo. Podržite neovisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mjesec.
Postani podupiratelj
India
