NEET violence: Supreme Court debates yet to detail if Delhi Police kept MHA in the loop

As violence broke out in the NEET-UG protests in the national capital on July 20, little has been said so far in the Supreme Court about directions or consultations between the Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

Supreme Court decision dated February 2012 Ramlila Maidan Incident and the Minister of Internal Affairs He cites the then Delhi Police Commissioner’s statement that “in practice, the Delhi Police duly informs the Home Ministry on such matters”.

The verdict stated that the affidavit claimed that the MHA “for obvious reasons, is concerned with the maintenance of law and order in the capital and carefully monitors all situations related to public order and tranquility”.

The court noted from the affidavit: “It was also clear that [Police Commissioner] “He was in constant touch with senior officials of the Ministry of Home Affairs” and kept them informed about the decisions taken by senior police officers in the field. Under Article 239AA of the Constitution, the MHA has control over the Delhi Police.

The stance of the political executive will be a crucial part of the Supreme Court hearings on the NEET-UG protests; in particular, one of the petitions claims that the police action against students protesting peacefully on July 20 was “no less than the atrocities in Jallianwala Bagh”. It was independently reported that outside the courtroom, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha had asked in a letter whether the Home Minister had authorized the use of “lethal force”.

For decades, the Supreme Court has demonstrated intense awareness and concern about political influence on the police.

There was a Supreme Court decision twenty years ago. Prakash Singh The case had warned against the overwhelming influence the political executive could wield over the police. The 2006 decision was based on a petition arguing that reducing the police to a tool in the hands of political masters would lead to serious human rights violations.

The 2006 ruling referred to the research paper ‘Political and Administrative Manipulation of the Police’ published in 1979 by the Bureau of Police Research and Development, warning: “Excessive control of the police by the political executive and its chief advisors risks turning the police into an instrument that will subvert the process of law, encourage the growth of authoritarianism and undermine the foundations of democracy.” One of the issues touched upon in the decision was the police’s handling of large-scale civil unrest.

Prakash Singh In the case decision, quoting a letter dated 3 April 1997 written by the then Home Secretary to the State governments, it was detailed that political influence on the police was a reality. The letter emphasized that many of the deficiencies in police functioning were largely due to an overdose of unhealthy and insignificant political interventions.

The resolution stated that the Union Home Secretary warned that “it is of great national importance to protect the police from increasing partisan tendencies or political interference in the discharge of their statutory functions relating to the prevention and control of crime, including investigation of cases and maintenance of public order.”

The Court has consistently held that respect for the rights of individuals is the “true bastion of democracy.” It was the state’s responsibility to repair the damage it had done to the rights of its civil servants.