INDIA 🔗 Part of: India Education Reforms and Paper Leak Protests (8) · 18 Aug 2026 · 09:40 GMT ·2 min read

Delhi Police Affidavit Challenges Claims Regarding July 2026 Jantar Mantar Protest Conduct

Delhi Police filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on August 18, 2026, defending its handling of the July 20, 2026, Sansad Chalo protest.

NEUTRALITY 62 · MIXED· 4 sources

Timesofindia

Delhi Police filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on August 18, 2026, defending its handling of the July 20, 2026, Sansad Chalo protest. The force reported that over 30,000 people attended the demonstration. This figure exceeded the 600 requested by the Cockroach Janta Party. Police stated 240 officers sustained injuries during the event. The affidavit describes the use of lathis as permissible gear. It also claims video evidence presented by petitioners is incomplete. The force defended its use of facial recognition technology to identify individuals with criminal records.

Context

On July 20, 2026, the Cockroach Janta Party organized a protest at Jantar Mantar. Participants demanded the resignation of then-Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan following alleged NEET paper leaks. The minister resigned on July 25, 2026.

Supportive perspectives

The Delhi Police deployed more than 4,600 women officers during the six-day demonstration, according to an official affidavit. These personnel managed crowds to maintain order at the site.
Police officials defend the use of facial recognition technology to identify individuals with criminal records. The system identified 2,873 such individuals between July 20, 2026, and July 26, 2026. This group includes 92 people involved in more than 10 criminal cases and 47 declared history-sheeters.
The affidavit states that the police response was necessary because of the protest scale. Organizers requested space for 500 to 600 people, but over 30,000 participants attended. Police reported that 240 officers sustained injuries during the event.
The Delhi Police described the use of lathis by officers as acceptable equipment. The department stated that officers used the batons appropriately to manage the scene.

Critical perspectives

The Delhi Police submitted an affidavit challenging video evidence from the petitioners. The police characterized the footage as a one-sided account of the events. The affidavit reveals a disagreement between the police record and the documentation from protest organizers.
The police report alleges that protesters damaged public and government property at several sites. These sites include Rail Bhawan, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, Janpath, Tolstoy Marg, and Gole Market.
The Cockroach Janta Party requested permission for a peaceful demonstration with a limited number of participants. Police denied the request for a march to Parliament. The denial caused a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement.
Petitioners and CJP organizers publicly disputed the police account. The available reports do not include their detailed rebuttal.