The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the “most powerful force” available to society and law enforcement agencies to prevent violence during protests is to listen to young people and counsel them, cautioning that any “aggressive action in the name of the mighty State” could escalate tensions and trigger further unrest.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohan agreed to hear a fresh petition seeking action against the organisers of the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” march in Delhi, during which violence was reported. The court directed that the plea be tagged with the batch of pending petitions relating to the nationwide student protests, allegations of police excesses and the NEET examination controversy.
Court stresses counselling over confrontation
During the hearing, the Bench noted that the response to student protests should prioritise dialogue rather than force.
“Youngsters are required to be pacified, counselled, and any aggressive action in the name of the ‘mighty State’ can unnecessarily aggravate the situation and precipitate further violence. That needs to be avoided,” the court observed.
It further said that democratic movements should begin peacefully and authorities must exercise restraint even if isolated incidents of violence occur.
“The better way is to counsel them. The most powerful force is listening… listen to them and understand why they are there,” the Bench said.
Petition seeks action against organisers
The petition, filed by former Indian Air Force officer Manish Solanki, seeks accountability against the organisers of the July 20 protest and those allegedly involved in rioting. It also requests the court to restrain the Centre and state governments from withdrawing criminal cases related to the recent student protests solely on the basis of political considerations.
Additionally, the plea seeks directions to identify individuals who allegedly made derogatory remarks against police or security personnel and require them to perform community service.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rizwan Ahmad argued that while questions were being raised over the conduct of governments and police, the organisers of the protest had escaped scrutiny.
“It has been 15 days, and after having created mayhem in a sensitive area, they are just moving from one television channel to another, delivering provocative speeches and still fanning the fire. The government could be on the back foot now, but society and this court cannot be,” Ahmad stated.
Concerns over accountability
The petitioner’s counsel argued that those involved in violence, including alleged stone-pelters, should not be allowed to evade legal consequences if governments decide to withdraw criminal cases.
“Ours is a petition arguing for community service. Stone pelters cannot be let off. There was stone pelting yesterday in Rajasthan, and this can happen anywhere else. This will become a dangerous precedent,” Ahmad told the court.
He further alleged that the July 20 march had proceeded without permission and that organisers had violated multiple conditions governing the event.
“There was no permission for the July 20 march. Twenty-two conditions were violated by the organisers, which was not even a registered organisation. How could they be allowed to march to Parliament or enter the temple of democracy?” he argued.
Bench to examine issues with pending cases
The Supreme Court indicated that the issues raised in the fresh plea would be considered alongside the larger batch of petitions already before it.
“Better we hear this with the batch of other matters where several related issues are pending. We are open to all kinds of suggestions, viewpoints and dissenting views,” the Bench observed.
At the same time, it said operational decisions on handling protests should remain with law enforcement agencies.
“Let us leave it to the wisdom of the law enforcement agencies. They know better how to handle situations on the ground. We are open to hearing all sides and all kinds of opinions. Let the government also respond to this,” the court said.
Earlier this week, the court clarified that its July 28 interim order did not prevent governments from withdrawing or closing criminal cases against eligible student protesters in accordance with law. It had also indicated that only those with serious criminal antecedents or accused of grave offences would remain outside the protection extended by the court.
The Bench had further said it was considering constituting a special investigation team to examine cases that were not withdrawn or closed, besides a separate committee headed by a former judge to look into issues arising from the protests. It also signalled its intention to frame comprehensive guidelines governing the use of pellet guns by police during crowd-control operations.