Delhi High Court seeks Supreme Court pleadings in protest cases, defers pleas on assaults and SOPs to October 16

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (October 13) sought details of proceedings before the Supreme Court while hearing petitions concerning alleged assaults on protesters during the October 10 demonstration in Delhi, restrictions on public gatherings and demands for standard operating procedures (SOPs) to regulate protests. A bench led by Acting Chief Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma dealt with separate pleas, including one filed by National Students' Union of India (NSUI) president Vinod Jakhar seeking an independent investigation into alleged assaults on members of the public near Jantar Mantar and Connaught Place. The court also heard petitions seeking the implementation of Supreme Court directions on regulating demonstrations, with traders claiming that disruptions had caused losses of around Rs 2,000 crore. It declined to pass an interim order on the implementation of SOPs and listed the matters for further consideration on Friday (October 16), while directing the respondents to obtain instructions. Delhi HC examines prayers in alleged assault case Advocate Meghan Ahmad, appearing for petitioner Anshika Tripathi, told the bench that prayers numbered 2, 4 and 5 in her petition were being pressed. These seek directions to the State to allow peaceful protests around Jantar Mantar and earmark separate locations for demonstrations; recognition of the right to internet as a fundamental right and removal of the internet shutdown; and a determination of the constitutionality of the mechanical imposition of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) across the Union Territory, as well as the alleged house arrests. The bench examined the Supreme Court's order and asked counsel to clarify which prayers were already under consideration before the apex court. The court was informed that the Supreme Court had adjourned the related proceedings to Thursday. The bench asked how the issues, including the alleged house arrests of people and politicians, could be examined without conflicting with orders passed by the Supreme Court. It subsequently listed Tripathi's petition for Friday, October 16, to enable counsel to produce copies of the petitions pending before the apex court on similar issues. The proceedings came amid allegations concerning restrictions imposed around the October 10 protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. A separate Supreme Court contempt petition has also been mentioned in connection with alleged violations of interim directions concerning restrictions on public movement and protest-related measures. NSUI president's plea faces maintainability objection The bench also took up a public interest litigation filed by NSUI national president Vinod Jakhar seeking a fair, independent and time-bound investigation into alleged assaults on people in Connaught Place and areas adjoining Jantar Mantar on October 10. The petition alleges that unidentified men in plain clothes intercepted and assaulted people heading towards the protest site. Jakhar has relied on nine publicly available video recordings that purportedly show individuals being pushed, punched, kicked and dragged by groups of men. The plea also raises questions about the conduct of police personnel allegedly present near the locations where the incidents occurred. It seeks the identification of those involved, preservation of electronic evidence and an inquiry into the police response. During Tuesday's hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma objected to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that it did not satisfy the Delhi High Court's rules governing public interest litigation. Referring to Rules 9(f) and 9(g), the ASG submitted that the rules require specific averments in each paragraph and disclosure of the nature and functions of an organisation when a petitioner approaches the court in that capacity. He also questioned the petitioner's decision to file the case in his individual capacity, contending that Jakhar could not avoid disclosing his background and position by describing himself as an individual petitioner. Counsel for Jakhar responded that the petition had been filed in his personal capacity and asked the court to examine the video footage annexed to it. He submitted that unidentified people had arrived at the protest site carrying lathis and started beating people. The court's order recorded the ASG's objection to maintainability and noted that the petitioner had sought action against the alleged wrongdoers. "We permit the learned ASG to file his preliminary objection as regards the maintainability and any other issue. Let the aforesaid be done in 3 weeks," the court said. Jakhar's counsel also sought directions to preserve CCTV footage from the areas concerned and permission to amend the affidavit. The petitioner's request for preservation of the footage was raised during the hearing; the supplied proceedings do not record a specific order granting that request. The court directed the ASG to file preliminary objections within three weeks. The petition was listed for hearing after four weeks, with the ASG stating that the authorities' stand and material filed before the Supreme Court would be placed on record. Petition seeks SIT probe and preservation of evidence The NSUI president's petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS, seeks an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police from outside the New Delhi district. It proposes supervision by an officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police, along with periodic status reports before the High Court. The plea seeks preservation of CCTV recordings from noon to 6 pm on October 10 at Connaught Place, Indira Chowk, outside Khadi Gramodyog Bhavan, Sansad Marg, Janpath and Jantar Mantar Road, as well as nearby Metro stations, including Rajiv Chowk, Janpath, Patel Chowk and Barakhamba Road. It also seeks the collection of original, unedited recordings from news organisations and individuals, identification of alleged victims and witnesses, recording of their statements, medical examinations for injured persons and protection wherever necessary. The petition refers to a separate video purportedly showing young men carrying sticks and flags bearing NSUI's name and emblem. Jakhar has stated that the organisation did not organise the procession or announce a closure of Connaught Place, and that, to his knowledge, those shown were not acting on its behalf. These claims remain allegations in the petition and have not been established through an investigation. The plea also states that a representation dated October 11 was submitted to the Union Home Secretary and concerned police authorities seeking an independent judicial inquiry, including a commission headed by a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge. Traders seek implementation of protest SOPs The bench subsequently took up petitions seeking the implementation of guidelines to regulate protests and prevent disruptions to commercial activity and the functioning of courts. Senior advocate Sacchin Puri appeared for the petitioners, while senior advocate Sanjay Poddar represented the traders. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's judgments in the Amit Sahni and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan cases, arguing that the authorities' failure to implement directions on public demonstrations had caused financial losses to traders and vendors. Poddar submitted that October to February was the best business period in Delhi and claimed that recent disruptions had caused losses of around Rs 2,000 crore. The petitioners sought directions requiring authorities to follow the Supreme Court's directions and implement SOPs governing demonstrations. Puri referred to the Shaheen Bagh judgment, which concerned the obstruction of roads by protesters, and said that SOPs had been introduced since then. The bench asked the petitioners to produce the pleadings filed before the Supreme Court in the proceedings that led to its orders on October 9 and 10. It said the apex court would examine what steps the Centre had taken and whether further action was required. "We don't want to cover area already sub judice before SC," the bench said, adding that it wanted to hear the respondents' position as well. The court observed that the petitions relied on the Amit Sahni judgment, which had considered the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan. It recorded the petitioners' contention that inaction in implementing the judgments had caused financial hardship to traders and vendors. The bench directed the respondents to take instructions and listed the matters for Friday, October 16. It declined to grant an interim direction for implementing the SOPs at this stage.