Police and security personnel allegedly prevented journalists from approaching detained demonstrators, raising concerns about media access and the implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions on free movement.
BY PC Bureau
New Delhi/ October 11: Even as the Supreme Court directed authorities to ensure free movement and review barricades imposed during the protests and refrain from mass detentions, Delhi Police personnel on Sunday continued detaining demonstrators in central Delhi, dragging students away, pushing them into police buses and preventing journalists from accessing detained protesters
The Sunday protest was led by the All India Students’ Association (AISA), the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), several other left-leaning student organisations and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). Thousands of students began gathering at Connaught Place, raising slogans demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
“Unless Gyanesh Kumar resigns, these daily protests will continue,” a student participating in the demonstration said.
As students attempted to march towards Jantar Mantar, police personnel intercepted them in and around Connaught Place. Several protesters were physically removed, pushed into police buses and taken away. Journalists attempting to approach detained protesters were also prevented from accessing them by the police and security personnel, raising further questions about compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
The police action continued despite the court’s intervention on Saturday, when a special bench addressed restrictions on movement and public transport imposed during the protests. The court directed authorities to ensure free movement of people and traffic and ordered a review of barricades across the capital.
Students Demand Gyanesh Kumar’s Resignation
The demonstrators gathered at Connaught Place demanded the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner, signalling their determination to sustain the agitation through daily protests until their demand was met.
The participation of AISA, SFI and other left-leaning student organisations, alongside the CJP, brought thousands of demonstrators into central Delhi. Those attempting to proceed towards Jantar Mantar were stopped by the police, with several students dragged away and bundled into buses.
The detention of protesters was accompanied by restrictions on journalists attempting to reach those being taken away. The reported obstruction of media access raises concerns about the ability of journalists to document police action and independently establish the circumstances in which demonstrators were detained.
The police action also raises questions about the balance between legitimate law-and-order requirements and citizens’ rights to assemble peacefully, move freely and report on public events.
Journalists Prevented from Accessing Detained Protesters
The reported prevention of journalists from approaching detained protesters adds another dimension to the controversy over the police operation.
Journalists covering demonstrations perform a crucial public function by documenting arrests, recording the treatment of protesters and reporting the authorities’ actions. Preventing them from accessing the scene can make independent verification of detentions and police conduct more difficult.
The reported restrictions are particularly contentious because the Supreme Court had intervened over allegations of excessive restrictions on movement during the protests. Whether the police action, including the obstruction of journalists, was supported by specific legal grounds will be central to assessing the authorities’ conduct.
The circumstances surrounding individual detentions, the legal basis for taking protesters away and the reasons given for restricting journalists’ access require clarification from the authorities.
Supreme Court Had Ordered Review of Barricades
During its special hearing on Saturday, the Supreme Court directed authorities to review barricades and ensure that restrictions took account of traffic and law-and-order requirements. It also addressed the operation of Metro and rail services, stressing that transport facilities should function normally unless restrictions were necessary to maintain public order.
The intervention followed petitions challenging police action during the protests, including allegations of mass detentions, blocked routes and restrictions on access to public transport.
The bench also sought a compliance report from the authorities and issued contempt notices in connection with allegations that its directions had not been followed.
The court is now set to examine the government’s compliance report, including the precise extent of Metro restrictions and the circumstances surrounding the alleged detentions and other curbs imposed during Saturday’s protests.
The government and police have disputed several allegations made by the petitioners and maintained that statutory procedures were followed.
However, the continued detention of protesters attempting to reach Jantar Mantar, coupled with reports that journalists were prevented from approaching those taken away, has intensified scrutiny of how the court’s directions are being implemented on the ground.
Compliance Under Scrutiny
The central question is whether Sunday’s police operation was based on specific and legitimate law-and-order concerns or whether it effectively prevented peaceful demonstrators from exercising their right to assemble and proceed towards Jantar Mantar.
The Supreme Court’s directions cannot be assessed solely through official assurances of compliance. The conduct of police personnel on the ground, the treatment of detained protesters, the accessibility of public spaces and the ability of journalists to cover the operation are all relevant to the broader question of whether the restrictions were lawful and proportionate.
If protesters were attempting to reach the designated venue peacefully, the use of physical force and detention would require an adequate legal justification. Similarly, restrictions on journalists seeking to report on the detentions would need to be assessed against the applicable law and the circumstances in which access was denied.
The authorities’ explanation for Sunday’s operation, along with details of those detained and the reasons for restricting journalists’ access, will be important in determining whether the Supreme Court’s directions have been implemented in practice.
For the student protesters, however, the immediate demand remained unchanged: Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.
“Unless Gyanesh Kumar resigns, these daily protests will continue,” a student said, underlining the demonstrators’ intention to continue the agitation.
