Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Aug 24: Amidst the Delhi police denying use of “excessive force” and defending its use of facial recognition technology and other biometric surveillance measures, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on Monday announced a fresh confrontational course against the Centre with a “peaceful march” in Delhi on September 5.
The announcement coming barely four weeks after the CJP withdrew its agitation “in good faith” after the resignation of the then union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan, may again create law and order problems in the national capital if the students and youths from across the country give similar response to the September 5 call as they did during the Jantar Mantar demonstration and “Chalo Sansad” call on July 20.
The satirical group, which began on Instagram earlier this year to protest against the NEET question paper leaks, said the “peaceful march” had been planned as the Centre didn’t “implement what it solemnly promised.” In a stamen on Monday, it said the march would begin at India Gate and end at the Delhi Police Headquarters, setting up a potential confrontation with the government.
Apart from Mr Pradhan’s resignation, the CJP had also demanded compensation for the families of NEET aspirants who allegedly died by suicide following the paper leak. It also wanted the government’s assurance that no legal action would be initiated against protesters. The CJP had called off the agitation then in “good faith” saying the government agreed to fulfil their demands.
In its statement on Monday, the CJP said the parents of NEET aspirants who died would lead the march. “CJP announces youth mobilisation on September 5th, with a peaceful march from India Gate to Delhi Police Headquarters, led by families of deceased NEET victims and victims of police brutality, over the Government’s failure to honour its July 25 commitments,” it said in the statement.
“The National Working Committee of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) convened today to review the Government of India and BJP/NDA ruled states’ compliance with the solemn commitments made to the young people of this country on 25 July 2026, based on which the nationwide youth protests were withdrawn in good faith. Members of the Committee expressed serious doubts over whether the Government intends to honour its word at all,” it added.
It claimed that the Supreme Court asked the government to provide a list of FIRs registered across the country against protesters for quashing, but it was not provided. “Yet, the Government refused to give a clear commitment to do so. The written assurance from the Government to the CJP is also due,” it added.
The group has appealed to students, youth organisations, and young citizens to gather in large numbers at India Gate.
The Delhi police in its affidavit before the Supreme Court have not only defended their use of facial recognition technology and other biometric surveillance measures during the CJP protest and Jantar Mantar, it has also refuted the CJP claim of having used “excessive force” against the students at the “Chalo Sansad” rally on July 20.
The affidavit claimed that the Delhi police personnel exercised “maximum restraint” while using only the “minimum required force” to control thousands of protesters. The affidavit, filed in response to the petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation into an alleged police crackdown, said an application by the CJP sought permission to hold a peaceful demonstration with 500-600 participants, but the permission for the march to parliament was denied.
Despite loudspeaker warnings, police said the protesters breached barricades and damaged government and public property across several locations, including Rail Bhawan, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, Janpath, Tolstoy Marg, and Gole Market.
Over 30,000 protestors, including anti-social elements, had gathered, the police said, adding that the law and order situation was rapidly changing and turned violent. “There is digital record available that shows disturbing visuals of big groups of protestors targeting lone police officials with stones, sticks, beating them up without any provocation almost in a mob lynching fashion,” the affidavit read.
There are multiple videos showing how the protestors were pulling off the protective gears worn by the police officers, dragging them, and removing their helmets, the police said, adding that it was always “presumed that the students will not do any such criminal acts.” In such circumstances, officers have to make quick decisions based on an immediate assessment of the security risk on the spot, the affidavit read.
Decisions taken on the spot should not be subsequently assessed solely on the basis of selected video clips or media reports, the police said. Some videos of individual incidents were incomplete and do not present a true picture, it said, calling allegations a “one-sided picture.” On the use of lathis by police personnel, the affidavit described them as “acceptable and permissible helping gear.”
The affidavit said more than 240 police personnel were injured after they were attacked during the protests. The police personnel gave warnings through loudspeakers and used minimum force only when violence escalated, the 97-page police affidavit said. Delhi police said it acted in good faith and within the law, and its primary objective was to maintain law and order.
On the use of facial recognition technology, which is also under challenge in a separate petition before the Supreme Court, the police said the system was not designed to automatically create or maintain profiles of protesters who have no criminal background.
The technology was used to generate alerts in cases where individuals with previous criminal antecedents were identified, following which their details are subjected to verification by personnel on the ground, it said. The police said between July 20 and 26, the system identified 2,873 individuals whose facial matches corresponded with existing criminal records. Of these, 92 were allegedly involved in more than 10 criminal cases, while 47 had been declared history-sheeters, it said.