Delhi Police Had No Authority Of Law To Enter Jamia Campus, Use Of Force Wholly Disproportionate: Sr Adv Indira Jaising To High Court

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued before the Delhi High Court on Monday that the Delhi Police had no authority to enter the Jamia Millia Islamia in 2019 and that the use of force on students protesting against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was wholly disproportionate to any public good.

The submission was made before a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh which was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the violence that broke out at the varsity in December 2019.

Jaising was appearing in one of the petitions moved by students of JMI seeking constitution of a fact finding committee to probe the consequences and causes of the violence, comprising of a retired judge of Supreme Court or High Court.

“Primary question I’m raising is what authority of law did the police have to enter the campus? My submission is that they had no authority of law to enter the campus. The question is, are the police authorised to use force, if so, to what end and to what proportionality of that force?,” Jaising said.

She submitted that the entry of the police in the varsity was “completely unauthorised” and “had no backing of law.”

“The use of force inside and outside the premises was wholly disproportionate to any alleged public good. The force of this kind which results in near fatal injuries can only be justified either in self defence or some jurisdiction to do so,” she said.

Furthermore, Jaising also contended that the Delhi police in its affidavit had “admitted” that they stopped the protesting students from reaching the parliament somewhere near Mathura road after which the students started getting back and entered the university premises.

“There is an admission to that effect, that students retreated and in that effort, they entered the university and the threat to the so called law and order was diffused. The question will be that if their aim was to stop students and that aim was achieved, then what was the need to enter inside the university? For what purpose? The purpose can only be authorised by law but there was no such purpose,” she said.

Jaising added that there is also an admission to the effect that the police did not seek any permission from the University’s Vice Chancellor to enter the premises.

Submitting that it then becomes a case of trespass, Jaising said that the then Vice Chancellor also made a statement that there was no permission which was sought by the police or granted by JMI.

“The assumption then has to be that the law and order was restored the moment when the students retreated from mathura road and were on the way back to the university. Entire plan of demonstrating in the parliament was successfully frustrated by the police and their job was done,” she said.

On the issue of excessive use of force by the police, Justice Mridul orally told Jaising:

“The courts in India have generated enough jurisprudence on excessive use of force. We can assure you…not just by the Supreme Court but this court and other courts.“

He added: “Excessive use of force cannot be justified at all. It cannot. They (Delhi Police) are accountable. As we understand, the authorities are accountable for the use of force. That is why you’re here, asking for an enquiry so that accountability is there.”

Appearing in another connected matter, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid made submissions on the framing of guidelines on the use of force by police in the universities to regulate similar incidents.

Court’s attention was invited to various documents dealing with best global practices adopted by the police to deal with peaceful protests in the universities and standard of procedures for crowd control issued by UNHRC and other bodies.

The court granted time to Khurshid for filing a brief written submissions not exceeding four pages.

The matter will now be heard on May 08. The court has granted advocate Rajat Nair, who represents Delhi police, four weeks’ time for filing on record the report of NHRC on the incidents relating to the matter.

The Supreme Court in October last year had requested "the High Court to hear out the matter early having regard to the fact that these matters are pending before the High Court for some time now."

Title: NABILA HASAN & ORS vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matters