Media365
Resolute citizen protests against the SIR, and the Modi government’s draconian police clampdown in response, defined the Capital in early October. Thousands were detained, journalists manhandled, Metro gates shuttered and cellular internet suspended. The Supreme Court saw enough to issue contempt notices to the Union Home Secretary and the Delhi Police Commissioner over alleged violations of its October 9 directions.
On October 15, Commissioner Anurag Kumar tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology”, but Solicitor General Tushar Mehta promptly clarified that such language is a procedurally required template in contempt responses and does not amount to an admission of wilful disobedience. An apology accompanied by a denial of wrongdoing leaves the transgression untouched: The manner in which batons, boots, and detention powers were used against protesters and journalists.
While the Commissioner “apologised” for Metro and internet restrictions, two more serious failures of accountability remain unacknowledged. First, the Delhi Police themselves recorded that three female journalists reported sexual harassment by officers during the October 3 protest. As of mid-October, no FIR had been registered against any officer on those allegations. Instead, an FIR under the SC/ST Act and related charges was filed against one of the journalists on the officer’s complaint. This is Orwellian, and the legal requirement that a cognisable offence be registered when a woman reports sexual assault or harassment has not been met. An inquiry is not an FIR. The Supreme Court has flagged the allegations as serious, but on the ground the pattern persists: Complaints stay complaints when they implicate the police.
Second, and more corrosive, is the documented presence of right-wing groups acting as parallel law enforcers. Multiple videos show saffron-clad men shouting, “Delhi Police tum lathi bajao, hum tumhare saath hain,” threatening journalists and protesters, and in some cases brazenly assaulting them, including manhandling women — while police stood nearby. Hindu Raksha Dal chief Pinky Chaudhary posted that the men were his workers. Police arrested four of the men after public outcry. Predictably, they were released on bail (with police not opposing), and one was garlanded. The same videos show detention law being strictly enforced against protesters while these vigilante groups moved freely, boasting on camera that they would not be detained because they were with the police.
A modern state must retain the monopoly on legitimate violence. When vigilantes are allowed to assault protesters and threaten journalists in the presence of officers, and when those officers later clear the same actors, this constitutionally granted monopoly is selectively privatised. The internal security implications are grave and degrade citizen safety.
The Supreme Court’s contempt notice concerned Metro gates and related curbs. The deeper contempt is of the principle that police must register crime as per the law rather than manage the narrative to suit political compulsions. If the Commissioner wishes the apology to carry any weight, the starting points are straightforward: Register the sexual-assault complaints as FIRs, place the named officers under proper investigation, and ensure vigilante groups are kept far from the business of policing protests. Anything less is puerile procedural platitude. The protests continue, and the citizen reposes faith in the sagacity of the highest court and its fidelity to the Constitution.
The writer is director, Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi
