The Supreme Court of India declined an urgent plea for action regarding alleged police excesses against Cockroach Janata Party student protesters.
The court's refusal to grant an urgent listing signals a high threshold for judicial intervention in police conduct cases, especially when based on video evidence during preliminary mentions.
The plea was filed by counsel on behalf of student protesters following a march on July 20, 2024 [2], where thousands of people gathered in New Delhi [1]. The protests took place around Jantar Mantar and other city streets to demand the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan [1].
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, “Don’t waste our time and yours,” when the request for an urgent hearing was presented [1]. The court said it was not inclined to examine video footage at the mentioning stage of the proceedings [2].
Counsel for the CJP protesters said there are videos showing police atrocities against the protesters [3]. However, the Chief Justice said, “We don’t have time to watch videos” [2].
The bench declined to initiate suo-motu action or provide an urgent listing for the case. This decision leaves the petitioners to seek relief through standard legal channels rather than an expedited judicial review of the police's actions during the July demonstrations.
““Don’t waste our time and yours.””
This ruling underscores the Supreme Court of India's reluctance to bypass standard procedural timelines for urgent listings based on digital evidence. By refusing to view video footage at the mentioning stage, the court emphasizes a preference for formal legal filings over immediate visual evidence, potentially delaying judicial oversight of police conduct during public demonstrations.
