A Delhi court has delivered its verdict in a case stemming from a protest against air pollution at the city's iconic India Gate, sending a total of 23 individuals to judicial custody. The Patiala House Court's decision comes after the Delhi Police alleged that the protesters not only blocked roads and obstructed officers but also raised slogans in support of a Maoist leader.
Court's Custody Orders and Allegations
In a detailed hearing, the court reportedly ordered 17 of the accused to be remanded to judicial custody for three days. A separate group of five accused was given a two-day custodial period. The court took a distinct step in the case of one individual who claimed to be a minor, directing that they be sent to a safe house until their age can be officially verified. A bail application has been filed on behalf of this minor.
The arrests were made in connection with an incident on Sunday, where protesters were accused of blocking a road, using pepper spray on Delhi Police personnel, and physically obstructing them from performing their duties during a demonstration focused on Delhi's severe air pollution crisis.
The Maoist Slogan Controversy and New Charges
The case took a serious turn when the Delhi Police informed the court that the accused persons raised slogans hailing Maoist leader Madvi Hidma, who was recently killed in an encounter with security forces in Andhra Pradesh. The police cited specific chants, including "Hidma amar rahe" and "Kitne Hidma maroge, har ghar se Hidma nikalega".
This development led to the invocation of a stringent new legal provision. Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was added to the First Information Report (FIR). This section deals with imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration, specifically targeting the dissemination of false information that could threaten India's sovereignty, unity, or security.
Police have registered two separate FIRs in the matter—one at the Kartavya Path police station against six people and another at the Sansad Marg police station against 17 individuals.
Defense Claims of Custodial Torture and Peaceful Protest
During the court proceedings, the defense presented a starkly different account. Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, representing five female accused, argued that his clients were students who had organized a peaceful protest. He submitted that the girls were manhandled, harassed, and sustained injuries.
Claims of custodial misconduct were a central theme from the defense. Counsel for two of the accused stated they had suffered injuries due to custodial torture and emphasized that the protest was peaceful and not linked to any anti-national or Naxalite activities. Another accused, identified as a practicing lawyer, claimed he was "beaten by the police."
The court took these allegations seriously and physically examined the injury marks on the accused that were allegedly inflicted by the police. Defense counsel urgently requested the preservation of CCTV footage as evidence to support their claims of police brutality during the arrest and subsequent custody.
Opposing the need for further custody, the defense argued that the accused, being students, had fully cooperated with the investigation. They questioned what further information the police hoped to uncover through custodial interrogation. The police, however, maintained that this interrogation was essential to unearth a larger conspiracy and probe potential links with Maoist organizations.
