The Supreme Court on Wednesday said authorities should engage with and understand the concerns of young protesters instead of allowing demonstrations to descend into violence.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan, made the observation while hearing a petition filed by retired Air Force officers seeking action against the organisers of the July 20 protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
The petition alleged that leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which spearheaded the protests over repeated question paper leaks, had made provocative statements that incited violence during the demonstrations.
Emphasising restraint, CJI Kant observed that authorities should first attempt to counsel and calm agitating students.
“We need to tread carefully so that these youngsters do not indulge in violence. The better course is to counsel them and pacify them. The most powerful tool is listening. Listen to them and understand why they are shouting,” the CJI said.
The court has been hearing a batch of petitions arising out of the nationwide protests that began in June after repeated examination paper leaks.
The agitation, led by the CJP, sought the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and culminated in a ‘Sansad Chalo’ march to Parliament on July 20 despite police refusing permission.
Clashes followed, with allegations that police used excessive force, including lathi charges, tear gas and pellet guns, to disperse protesters. Pradhan resigned on July 25, after which the protests were withdrawn.
On July 28, the apex court directed authorities not to take coercive action against protesters and ordered the release of minors detained in connection with the demonstrations.
Appearing for the retired officers, counsel argued that while scrutiny had focused on the government’s and police’s handling of the protests, no action had been initiated against the organisers even two weeks after the violence.
He contended that organisers of public events are routinely held responsible for incidents arising from such gatherings and argued that the same principle should apply in the present case.
According to him, permitting protesters to defy police restrictions and proceed towards Parliament despite the absence of permission would create an undesirable precedent and pose serious security concerns.
Responding, Justice Kant said the objective should be to enable peaceful protests while ensuring that tensions do not escalate.
“What is important is to promote a peaceful march. If some incident takes place, the police also need to exercise a great deal of restraint to ensure that the situation does not go out of hand. Wherever such incidents take place, we need to deal with them very carefully,” he observed.
The CJI also said operational decisions in such situations should be left to law enforcement agencies, noting that they are best equipped to assess and respond to ground realities.
Observing that another pending petition dealt with the protests from the opposite perspective, the Bench issued notice on the retired officers’ plea and directed that it be heard along with the batch of pending matters concerning the demonstrations.
