Use of excess police power on peaceful pro-testators is against law and is an offence The law is now well settled that the State or its functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life which includes right to live with human dignity except in accordance with law. whether petitioners have made out a case that their fundamental right to live with human dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been invaded, atleast prima facie, so as to direct for an independent investigation/enquiry so that the perpetrators may not get away scot free if petitioners’ case is found true. = BEENU RAWAT & ORS ... PETITIONERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS = published in http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wc446.pdf

Use of excess police power on peaceful pro-testators is against law and is an offence The law is now well settled that the State or its  functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life  which includes right to live with human dignity except  in accordance with law.  whether petitioners have made out a  case that their fundamental right to live with human  dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of  India has been invaded, atleast prima facie, so as to  direct for an independent investigation/enquiry so that  the perpetrators may not get away scot free if  petitioners’ case is found true. = The counter  version of the respondents that the petitioners  indulged in rioting and damaged public property is  neither supported by photographs contained in Annexure  R.2 (colly) nor by the video footage shows to this  Court.  The video  footage shown to us revealed that none of the  protestors were carrying any arms or even brickbats in  course of the protest. The initial part of the  incident discloses lack of any bitterness and almost a  friendly atmosphere.  Thereafter, when copy of the FIR  was shown from a distance but not made available to any  one, the slogans increased and the tone could be  perceived by some persons as irritating.  Barring some  protestors rest were pushed out of the gate of police  station without any resistance or any untoward  incident.  The crowd outside the gate apparently did  not disperse.  The last part of the video footage  fleetingly shows use of lathis by the police men upon  the protestors.  Thereafter, the recording was stopped  15and appears to have been resumed after lapse of  sometime to show some broken glass panes, brickbats in  very limited number and some broken spectacles lying on  the ground, a grim reminder of use of force. No part of the video footage  shows the crowd to be very large or indulging in any  physical violence. Even if this version in the counter  affidavit is accepted in part, one is left to wonder  why the petitioners who had injuries on their bodies  had to be arrested instead of allowing them to disperse  with the crowd which was allegedly large and violent.  It is also intriguing as to why the FIR bearing  No.251/13 for rioting etc. was registered at 5.35 p.m.  after eighteen persons were apprehended at 3.30 p.m.  and not before their arrest if they had vandalized the  18police station and caused damage to the public  property. There is no  dispute that petitioners have received injuries but  according to counter affidavit, these were due to some  of the protestors falling down on the vehicles parked  17along the walls of the compound and there was no lathi  charge or any act of beating of the protestors. Such  statement in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit  cannot be accepted in view of the last part of the  video footage already noted earlier. Writ Allowed:-  In that view of the  matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the  following directions:- (1) Investigation of FIR No.251/13, as per  order of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, dated  31.10.2013 shall be carried out by Special  Investigation Team and not by the police officials  of P.S. Gokul Puri. (2) The complaint of the petitioners as made  before this Court regarding violation of their  fundamental right to life and liberty shall be  enquired into by the National Human Rights  Commission expeditiously. For that purpose the  Commission may use its statutory powers including  those under Sections 13 and 14 of the Protection  of Human Rights Act, 1993. 23(3) The Commission shall take further required  steps and action as per law after concluding the  enquiry/investigation so that persons(s) found  guilty may be subjected to required penalty  according to law, without undue delay. 21. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid  extent. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION  WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.446 OF 2013  BEENU RAWAT & ORS ... PETITIONERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,J. The petitioners claim to be young volunteers of  ‘Aam Aadmi Party’ (AAP) engaged in selfless work for  the improvement of democratic institutions of this  country and also fight for justice.  They have  approached this Court under Article 32 of the  Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other  writ or direction to order an independent  investigation by a Special Investigation  Team into the abovementioned incident of  police atrocities which took place on  19.06.2013 at Gokul Puri Police Station  against the petitioners and if such  allegations are found correct, pass further  consequential and necessary directions,  including initiation of criminal  prosecution as well as disciplinary  proceedings against the police officers of  the Delhi Police found involved and also  against those senior police officers at  whose behest this vindictive act of  atrocity was done; (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other  writ or direction to award monetary  compensation to the petitioners for their  illegal arrest and torture by the Delhi  Police which has resulted in gross  violation of their fundamental rights to  live with dignity as guaranteed under  Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (c) pass such other and further order/s as  this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper  on the facts and in the circumstances of  the case.” 2. The incident of 19.06.2013 at Gokal Puri Police  Station in Delhi which is mentioned in prayer no. (a)  noted above, occurred in course of a protest by the  volunteers of (AAP) at Gokal Puri Police Station since  2morning hours.  The protestors wanted registration of an  FIR in respect of an alleged occurrence of rape of a  poor woman by two persons in Bhagirathi Vihar.  Allegedly the police was reluctant to register the FIR  and hence a number of volunteers including the  petitioners joined the protest. The FIR was ultimately  registered around 2.30 p.m. and the protestors were  informed of the same. A demand was made for a copy of  the FIR. According to respondents the copy could not  be given to others because of the nature of the alleged  crime which requires that name of the victim be not  disclosed. According to petitioners the copy of the  FIR was not given even to victim’s husband. It is the  case of the petitioners that when they were planning to  wind up the protest, they were suddenly rounded up by a  large number of policemen and mercilessly beaten by  them. The manner of chase and beating by lathi gave an  impression to the petitioners that the police action  was not to disperse the petitioners but to teach them a  lesson. As per allegations, the police also used  3abusive language and told the protestors that they will  be taught a lesson so that they do not indulge in such  kind of protests in future. Initially, police arrested  seventeen volunteers but three of them were let off as  they were minor girls. Subsequently, petitioner Nos. 2  and 10 were also taken into custody and allegedly  beaten in police custody although they claimed that  they had come to the police station later only to  enquire about the incident. The nineteen petitioners  claim to have sustained serious injuries on head, back,  arm and legs. One of them (petitioner no.17) has  sustained fracture in lower ulna but he managed to run  away. 3. According to the case of the petitioners the police  had indulged in unlawful use of force and inflicted  injuries before arrest and also during custody, leading  to injuries to the petitioners; the arrest was unlawful  which is sought to be justified by fabricated evidence  for rioting etc.; by breaking window glasses and  4tearing of some papers in the police station. According  to the petitioners a serious case was attempted to be  made out through subsequent statement of one ASI of  police, Ms. Sushila. There is no such incident  mentioned in the FIR bearing no. 251/2013 dated  19.06.2013 registered at P.S. Gokul Puri and even  before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate she had  alleged that only her scarf (dupatta) was pulled by  protestors. The petitioners have claimed that the  Commissioner of police, Delhi, has made an incorrect  statement that Delhi police has videos of protestors  vandalizing the police station. To decide the case it  is not necessary for this Court to delve deep into  allegations made by the petitioners or those against  them by the police which has lodged a criminal case of  rioting etc. as noted above. This is because there is  no prayer made in this writ petition seeking any kind  of intervention in the investigation of police case  registered against the petitioners. Even the first  prayer made by the petitioners is to order an  5independent investigation by a Special Investigation  Team (SIT) into the incident of 19.06.2013 to find out  the truthfulness of allegations of police atrocities  and if such allegations are found right then further  consequential orders be passed for criminal prosecution  as well as disciplinary action against the concerned  police officers. Hence, the issue before the Court is  a limited one requiring a careful appraisal of relevant  facts and circumstances for coming to a conclusion as  to whether the petitioners have made out a case for  issuing a direction to order an independent  investigation into the alleged incident of 19.06.2013  at Gokal Puri Police Station, Delhi or not. 4. In this background a look at the counter affidavit  on behalf of the respondents discloses that the version  given by the police attempts to portray a picture that  when the prosecutrix or the victim of alleged rape came  to the police station along with her husband at about  9.00 a.m. on 19.06.2013, the S.H.O. immediately deputed  6a lady A.S.I., Ms. Sushila to investigate into the  matter and a female counselor, Mrs. Dinesh Panchal from  a local NGO was also called for the aid of prosecutrix.  A Daily Diary entry to this effect bearing no.11-A was  made at 9.10 a.m. and a statement of the victim was  recorded by the lady A.S.I. in presence of counselor  from the NGO. On that basis FIR No. 250/13 was  registered under Section 376-D/506 of the Indian Penal  Code at 10.05 a.m. and thereafter the victim was sent  for medical examination to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,  New Delhi. The fact of lodging of the FIR was conveyed  to the protestors but still by 12.00 noon their number  increased to 100-125 which included 20-25 women. A  lady ASI was deputed to control the female protestors.  Demand for getting a copy of FIR was declined by the  S.H.O. with a view not to reveal the identity of the  victim. 5. It is found that the counter version does not deny  or even refer to the presence of husband of the victim  7and there is no disclosure of any reason as to why copy  of the FIR was not supplied to the victim or her  husband. Had that been done, the bone of contention  between the rivals could have been totally taken care  of. 6. According to the counter affidavit the protestors  were all around the compound of the police station and  had also entered the corridor thus blocking the entry  and exit of the officials and obstructing them in  performing their official duties. The protestors  climbed the compound walls and shouted slogans. They  abused the police officials and some of them pelted  stones causing damage to building windows and vehicles.  The police staff was trapped inside the police station  being out-numbered by the large number of protestors.  The violent acts of the crowd allegedly caused injuries  to five police personnels. Their injury reports have  been annexed as Annexure R.1 (colly). The lady A.S.I.  engaged in controlling the women protestors was  8manhandled by the crowd and sustained injuries. To  support the claim that protestors had entered the  premises, blocked entry to the police station, pelted  stones and damaged public property, some photographs  have been brought on record as Annexure R.2 (colly). 7. Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit is crucial as  it relates to the most significant part of the incident  in which injuries were caused to some of the  petitioners leading to their arrest. Paragraph 5 runs  as follows:- “5. As the crowd had become  uncontrollable, the SHO, PS Gokul Puri  reported the situation to the senior  officers and asked for the deployment of  additional police force from adjoining  Police Stations, PS Jyoti Nagar and PS  Bhajan Pura, to control the crowd. With the  help of the additional force, efforts were  made to disperse the crowd and help the  officials trapped inside the Police Station  Gokul Puri. Arrival of the additional  force from the adjoining police stations  created panic amongst the protestors and  they started dispersing in various  directions. Some of the protestors who had  climbed the walls of the Police Station  fell down on the vehicles parked by the  wall and sustained injuries on their own.  9There was no lathi charge or any act of  beating of the protestors as wrongly  alleged by the Petitioners.” 8. It has also been disclosed in the counter affidavit  that till 3.30 p.m. eighteen persons were apprehended  on the spot which included three minor girls, four  women and eleven men. FIR was registered against the  protestors bearing no.251/13 at 5.35 p.m. The three  minor girls were let off at about 7.00 p.m. when their  parents arrived. The remaining fifteen were however  arrested. They were sent for medical examination to  Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital and then produced before  the Duty Magistrate at 2.20 a.m. in the morning and  then sent to Tihar jail. Petitioner No. 10-Narender  Rawat, brother of minor petitioner no.1 Beenu Rawat and  also petitioner no.4-Pushpa is claimed to have been  arrested in the morning of 20.06.2013 because he had  escaped on the previous date. Petitioner No.17 along  with four other persons had also allegedly escaped and  they were arrested on 21.08.2013. 109. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit a  submission has been advanced that petitioners are  trying to mislead this Court by making wrong  allegations that police used excessive force against  them. The defense in this paragraph is that the  protestors had outnumbered and over run the police  officers at police station Gokal Puri, obstructing them  from performing their official duties and caused damage  to public property on the pretext of helping a rape  victim.  10. According to respondents, there was no lapse on  behalf of the police to help the prosecutrix and the  police resorted to the minimal use of force only enough  to disperse the large violent crowd and safeguard the  police personnel trapped inside the police station. 11. As indicated earlier, at the present stage when the  criminal case is under investigation it will not be  proper for this Court to finally decide any issue  11relating to that case. The pendency of investigation  in that case notwithstanding, this Court has to decide  the limited issue  whether petitioners have made out a  case that their fundamental right to live with human  dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of  India has been invaded, atleast prima facie, so as to  direct for an independent investigation/enquiry so that  the perpetrators may not get away scot free if  petitioners’ case is found true.  12. In part III of the Constitution of India Article  21 enjoys special status. Right to life and Right to  liberty are of historical importance. Rise of modern  democratic state is attributable to a long drawn battle  waged by ordinary people against the sovereign power.  The law is now well settled that the State or its  functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life  which includes right to live with human dignity except  in accordance with law.  The maximum threat to such  fundamental right is perceptible when any kind of  12protest or agitation is directed against the police  force for reasons which are self-evident.  Police is  licensed to carry arms for protecting the people.  This  itself creates a situation where the power of arms may  be misused under the mistaken belief in the absolutism  of the police power or on account of lack of  sensitivity to the democratic rights of the people to  register peaceful protest, against wrongs, especially  that of public functionaries.  The submissions on  behalf of respondents that nobody can be permitted to  paralyse the functioning of police or other State  institutions in a name of public protest can not be  rejected off hand because it is only a corollary of the  right to protest peacefully;  proverbially the other  side of the coin which corroborates the well accepted  principle that rights without duties tend to degenerate  into license for misuse of rights. In a given case,  the facts may lead to such conclusions. Hence facts  and circumstances in such cases need to be scrutinized  carefully. 1313. In the present case also the relevant facts require  to be noticed in order to arrive at a conclusion  whether the petitioners’ prayers deserve to be allowed  or not.  The petitioners are ordinary persons with  clean antecedents. The injuries caused to the  petitioners in the incident have not been denied as  they are supported by medical reports.  So far as  injuries to some of the police officers are concerned,  instead of forming our own opinion, we may only refer  to the order dated 22.06.2013 passed by the Vacation  Judge (NE)/Additional Sessions Judge contained in  Annexure P.11.  While granting bail to 11 applicants, in  paragraph 6, the learned Judge had noted that the MLCs  of five police officials indicate that they have  suffered from minor injuries which were in the form of  scratches and abrasion only and the FIR does not  indicate that the lady police officials were assaulted  or any attempt to outrage their modesty was made by the  accused persons. 1414. Since a claim was made that unlawful acts of the  protestors had been recorded through videography which  was available with the respondents, learned Additional  Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra made arrangements for  screening of the video tape for our perusal.  The video  footage shown to us revealed that none of the  protestors were carrying any arms or even brickbats in  course of the protest. The initial part of the  incident discloses lack of any bitterness and almost a  friendly atmosphere.  Thereafter, when copy of the FIR  was shown from a distance but not made available to any  one, the slogans increased and the tone could be  perceived by some persons as irritating.  Barring some  protestors rest were pushed out of the gate of police  station without any resistance or any untoward  incident.  The crowd outside the gate apparently did  not disperse.  The last part of the video footage  fleetingly shows use of lathis by the police men upon  the protestors.  Thereafter, the recording was stopped  15and appears to have been resumed after lapse of  sometime to show some broken glass panes, brickbats in  very limited number and some broken spectacles lying on  the ground, a grim reminder of use of force. 15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners Mr.  Shanti Bhushan has relied upon some past incidents,  specially one relating to unfortunate death of a police  constable in the course of demonstration against the  gang rape to a paramedical student “Damini” in  December, 2012, followed by another unfortunate case of  a five years’ old victim “Gudiya” which led to protest  by members of AAP and in course of the same petitioner  no.1 was slapped by an Assistant Commissioner of Police  of Delhi force which led to suspension of the said ACP.  He also referred to some allegations against the  erstwhile Delhi Police commissioner. On the basis of  those incidents and allegation it was submitted that  Delhi police cannot be relied for fair investigation in  a case of present nature involving members of ‘AAP’ and  16therefore the Court should order for fair investigation  by an independent agency. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Luthra submitted that police  itself acted fairly and did not submit charge-sheet  against any of the accused persons arrested for causing  death of constable Subhash Tomar. He pointed out that  the concerned ACP who had slapped petitioner No.1 was  placed under suspension. According to him the  allegations that the erstwhile Delhi Police  Commissioner was close to a white collared criminal,  has no substance and that matter cannot have any effect  upon the investigation of the present incident. 17. In our considered view it is not necessary to  examine the effect of earlier incidents for the purpose  of deciding the present writ petition.  There is no  dispute that petitioners have received injuries but  according to counter affidavit, these were due to some  of the protestors falling down on the vehicles parked  17along the walls of the compound and there was no lathi  charge or any act of beating of the protestors. Such  statement in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit  cannot be accepted in view of the last part of the  video footage already noted earlier. A glimpse of  action taken by the police is available in paragraph 8  of the counter affidavit wherein it is claimed that  Police resorted to minimal use of force which was only  enough to disperse a large violent crowd and safeguard  the police personnel.  No part of the video footage  shows the crowd to be very large or indulging in any  physical violence. Even if this version in the counter  affidavit is accepted in part, one is left to wonder  why the petitioners who had injuries on their bodies  had to be arrested instead of allowing them to disperse  with the crowd which was allegedly large and violent.  It is also intriguing as to why the FIR bearing  No.251/13 for rioting etc. was registered at 5.35 p.m.  after eighteen persons were apprehended at 3.30 p.m.  and not before their arrest if they had vandalized the  18police station and caused damage to the public  property. 18. In the light of the aforesaid discussions and the  fact that the video footage recorded at the instance of  the police does not show acts of rioting or any arms or  brickbats in the hands of the protestors and the  recording was stopped as soon as police started using  lathis upon the protestor, we are left with no option  but to hold, at least prima facie, that in the incident  in question, peaceful protestors were subjected to  beating by lathis etc. by the police force which  included policemen from the concerned police station as  well as force called from adjoining police station,  P.S. Jyoti Nagar and P.S. Bhajanpura. The counter  version of the respondents that the petitioners  indulged in rioting and damaged public property is  neither supported by photographs contained in Annexure  R.2 (colly) nor by the video footage shows to this  Court.  In that view of the matter, the whole incident  19of 19.06.2013 at Gokul Puri Police Station, District  North-East, Delhi requires to be investigated/enquired  by an independent agency or by a Special Investigation  Team.  Considering the possibility of our arriving at  this opinion we had requested learned counsel for the  rival parties to provide us proposals containing names  of some persons who could be entrusted with conducting  investigation in the said incident.  On behalf of the  petitioners two names have been proposed which are as  follows: 1. Sh. I.C.Dwivedi, IPS (RTD.), Former Director General of Police,  Uttar Pradesh,  Address: 9/26, Vishal Khand, Gomati  Nagar, Lucknow. 2. Sh. N.Dilip Kumar, IPS (Retired)  Special Commissioner Delhi Police also worked as Joint Commissioner of  police (Vigilance) Delhi Police Worked in CBI for seven years 20Address: 16 A, Rajpura Road, Civil  Lines, Delhi. 19. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents  only a letter addressed to Sh. Sidharth Luthra, leaned  Additional Solicitor General along with copy of an  order dated 31.10.2013 issued from the office of  Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has been submitted to us  to show that since during the course of hearing of this  matter this Court had expressed the need for an  impartial or fair investigation by some other competent  setup, the Commissioner of Police Delhi has approved  for formation of a Special Investigation Team headed by  Sh. Bhisham Singh DCP/Crime to work under close  supervision of Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime,  Delhi. 20. So far as investigation of the FIR No. 251/13 is  concerned, in our considered view it has rightly been  transferred from police station Gokal Puri to a Special  Investigation Team.  However that can not take care of  the petitioners’ grievances that they have been  21subjected to excessive use of force and abuses etc. and  that the force used was not at all justified and hence  they have been deprived of their fundamental right to a  life of dignity.  In view of our prima facie findings  noted above, we are of the view that the grievances of  the petitioners require investigation by an authority  having statutory jurisdiction in such matters.  If the  State had itself suggested names of the persons who  could constitute Special Investigation Team for the  purpose, the matter would have been different and we  could have considered to direct for formation of such a  team by the State by selecting persons from the names  suggested by the parties.  But in the absence of such  option, we direct the National Human Rights Commission  to enquire into the complaint of the petitioners  regarding violation of their fundamental rights  particularly one under Article 21 of the Constitution  of India.  Such direction is granted in view of Section  12(A) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.  Under that Act the definition of “Human Rights” is  22large enough to include rights relating to life,  liberty, equality and dignity of the individual  guaranteed by the Constitution.  In that view of the  matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the  following directions:- (1) Investigation of FIR No.251/13, as per  order of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, dated  31.10.2013 shall be carried out by Special  Investigation Team and not by the police officials  of P.S. Gokul Puri. (2) The complaint of the petitioners as made  before this Court regarding violation of their  fundamental right to life and liberty shall be  enquired into by the National Human Rights  Commission expeditiously. For that purpose the  Commission may use its statutory powers including  those under Sections 13 and 14 of the Protection  of Human Rights Act, 1993. 23(3) The Commission shall take further required  steps and action as per law after concluding the  enquiry/investigation so that persons(s) found  guilty may be subjected to required penalty  according to law, without undue delay. 21. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid  extent. …………………………………………………J.  (G.S. Singhvi) …………………………………………………J.  (Shiva Kirti Singh) …………………………………………………J.  (C. Nagappan) New Delhi, November 19, 2013  24ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.3 SECTION PIL (for Judgment)  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A  RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 446 OF 2013 BEENU RAWAT & ORS. Petitioner(s)  VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date: 19/11/2013 This Petition was called on for Judgment  today. For Petitioner(s)  Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. For Respondent(s)  Mr. D.S. Mahra ,Adv Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh  pronounced the Judgment of the Bench comprising  Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi, His Lordship and  Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent  indicated in the Judgment.  (Rajesh Dham) (Renu Diwan)  Court Master Court Master  (signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) 25