The purpose of this article is not to create an artificial balance between competing political narratives. Truth does not automatically lie somewhere between the government's account and the protesters' version. It must be determined through verifiable evidence, including videos, photographs, eyewitness testimony, medical records, official police documents, independent journalism, constitutional principles and judicial standards governing the use of force.

Publicly available material relating to the 20 July 2026 Sansad Chalo protest indicates that Delhi Police used lathis (batons) and tear gas during crowd-control operations. Several widely circulated videos also appear to show men dressed in civilian clothing carrying police-style lathis and operating alongside uniformed police personnel. Some footage further appears to show force being used against individuals who were retreating, seated, restrained or otherwise not presenting an immediate threat.

These observations raise significant questions about the proportionality of police action, the use of unidentified personnel during law enforcement operations, accountability mechanisms and possible implications under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

At the same time, the evidence presently available does not conclusively establish that the plain-clothed individuals were "goondas hired by the police." The most accurate description supported by the available material is that unidentified men in civilian clothes carrying lathis appeared to operate alongside, and in some instances in coordination with, uniformed police personnel. Their identities, legal authority and official roles have not been publicly disclosed.

What Happened on 20 July 2026?

On 20 July 2026, students, youth groups and supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party gathered in central Delhi for a "Sansad Chalo" march linked to allegations of examination irregularities, including issues surrounding the NEET examination.

The protesters demanded accountability for the alleged irregularities, action against those responsible, reforms to the examination system and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Delhi Police reportedly denied permission for the march to proceed towards Parliament. Security arrangements included barricades, prohibitory measures in parts of central Delhi, closure of certain Metro stations, deployment of large numbers of police personnel and reports of temporary disruption of mobile internet services in some areas.

Clashes occurred when sections of the crowd attempted to move beyond the permitted area.

Videos and news reports show police using lathis, tear gas, physical restraint and detentions. Police also alleged that some protesters broke barricades, threw stones, damaged public property and injured security personnel. These allegations deserve proper investigation.

However, even if some individuals committed offences, that fact alone does not legally justify indiscriminate force against everyone present at the protest.

What the Available Evidence Indicates

Police Used Lathis and Tear Gas

The use of batons and tear gas is supported by multiple publicly available videos, eyewitness accounts and news reports. It is therefore inaccurate to suggest that no force was used.

The central legal question is not whether force was used, but whether that force was necessary, proportionate and limited to addressing an immediate threat.

Allegations of Force Against Non-Threatening Individuals

Some videos appear to show protesters being struck while retreating, sitting on the road, lying on the ground, shielding themselves, restrained by police or moving away from the confrontation.

Although short video clips may not capture the events immediately preceding an incident, they should ideally be assessed alongside full recordings, original files, timestamps, location data, additional camera angles and witness testimony.

Nevertheless, one established legal principle remains relevant: when a person is unarmed, retreating, restrained or no longer presenting an immediate threat, continued physical force is difficult to justify as necessary crowd control. Police are empowered to control dangerous situations, not to punish individuals without arrest, investigation or judicial process.

Presence of Plain-Clothed Men Carrying Lathis

Several videos appear to show men wearing ordinary civilian clothes while carrying police-style lathis. In some recordings, these individuals appear to move alongside uniformed police and participate in operations directed at protesters.

The same individuals appear in footage from multiple locations or angles, strengthening the likelihood that they were genuinely present during the operation.

However, the available videos do not establish who these individuals were, which organisation they belonged to, whether they held official positions, whether they had lawful authority to use force or what precise role they played.

Their presence nevertheless raises an important public question: why were unidentified individuals in civilian clothing carrying and apparently using lathis alongside uniformed police personnel?

Who Were the Plain-Clothed Men?

Based on the currently available evidence, three possibilities exist.

1. They Were Police or Other Authorised Government Personnel

Police officers, intelligence personnel and other security officials sometimes work in civilian clothes.

However, where such individuals detain citizens, carry police equipment or exercise coercive authority, principles of accountability require that they be identifiable. The Supreme Court's decision in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal emphasised the importance of identification for officers involved in arrests and custodial actions.

If these individuals were authorised personnel, public confidence would be strengthened if authorities disclosed their identities, ranks, units, deployment orders, authority to carry lathis and the officers responsible for supervising them.

Anonymous use of state force creates a significant accountability gap.

2. They Were Civilians Officially Assisting Police

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita allows, in limited circumstances, authorised officers to seek assistance from private persons in dispersing unlawful assemblies or making arrests.

However, such assistance cannot reasonably be interpreted as permitting unidentified civilians to use force without supervision, documentation, training or accountability.

If civilians were officially authorised to assist police, transparency would require disclosure of the legal order, their identities, assigned responsibilities, supervising officers and the legal basis for permitting them to carry lathis.

3. They Were Unauthorised Private Individuals

If the individuals were neither police personnel nor lawfully authorised assistants, their participation would raise serious legal concerns. Such circumstances could potentially involve unlawful assault, failure by police to prevent offences, misuse of force or possible complicity.

At present, however, publicly available evidence does not establish that these individuals were hired criminals or political goons. Describing them as "police-hired goondas" would therefore exceed what the verified evidence presently supports.

At the same time, the absence of official clarification naturally contributes to public suspicion. Authorities possess deployment records capable of identifying every person authorised to exercise police-like powers during the operation.

Constitutional Protection of Protest

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, equality before law and protection of life and personal liberty through Articles 19, 14 and 21.

These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, security and prevention of violence. Police may regulate protest routes, establish barricades, arrest violent individuals and disperse unlawful assemblies.

However, refusal of permission for a protest does not suspend constitutional protections. An unauthorised march may lawfully be stopped, but that alone does not justify unnecessary physical force against persons who are not posing an immediate threat.

Violence by Some Protesters Does Not Justify Force Against Everyone

If particular individuals threw stones, attacked police officers, damaged public property or committed other offences, they may be identified, arrested and prosecuted according to law.

But one person's misconduct cannot legally justify force against another individual who is peacefully seated, recording events, attempting to leave, injured or already under restraint.

Law enforcement is expected to distinguish between violent participants, peaceful protesters, journalists, bystanders, injured persons and detainees. Collective punishment is inconsistent with the rule of law.

Possible Constitutional Issues

Article 19

If force was applied indiscriminately against peaceful participants rather than specifically addressing violent conduct, questions may arise regarding the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly protected under Article 19.

Restrictions on protest must pursue a lawful objective, remain necessary and proportionate, and avoid excessive interference with fundamental rights.

Article 21

Article 21 protects life, bodily integrity, personal liberty and human dignity.

Particular concern arises where force is alleged to have continued against individuals who were already subdued, injured or attempting to leave. If verified, such conduct could raise serious legal issues regarding unlawful use of force and abuse of official authority.

Article 14

Article 14 protects individuals from arbitrary state action.

If unidentified persons were permitted to exercise police-like authority without clear identification, affected individuals may face substantial obstacles in identifying those responsible, filing complaints or seeking legal remedies.

Transparency regarding the identity and authority of those exercising state power is central to constitutional accountability.

Internet Shutdown

Reports indicate that mobile internet services were disrupted in parts of central Delhi during the protest.

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that internet restrictions must be authorised through lawful, reasoned, temporary and proportionate orders subject to review.

If internet access was restricted, publication of the relevant legal order and reasons would help assess compliance with these safeguards.

An internet shutdown may affect the ability of citizens to contact family members, seek legal assistance, obtain medical help, communicate with journalists or preserve evidence. This alone does not establish an improper motive, but it does require careful legal scrutiny.

Was the Protest Entirely Peaceful?

Available evidence does not support the conclusion that every participant acted peacefully.

Police have alleged stone-pelting, destruction of barricades, vandalism, unlawful assembly and injuries to security personnel. These allegations require proper investigation supported by evidence and due process.

Similarly, allegations against police officers must also be investigated independently. Criminal accusations against some protesters cannot automatically justify every use of force by law enforcement.

Claims That Remain Unproven

Certain widely circulated claims should not presently be treated as established facts.

There is no publicly verified evidence proving that the plain-clothed men were hired criminals or political goons.

Similarly, allegations that pellet guns were used have not been supported by publicly available independent medical or forensic evidence.

Individual viral claims involving serious injuries or specific victims should likewise be verified through medical records, original video footage, eyewitness testimony and other reliable evidence before being accepted as fact.

Evidence-based criticism requires both accuracy and restraint.

Why an Independent Investigation Matters

Publicly available material raises sufficient constitutional and legal questions to justify an independent investigation.

Such an inquiry should examine video evidence, CCTV recordings, traffic-camera footage, media recordings, police deployment records, command logs, orders authorising the use of force, arrest records, medical reports, forensic evidence and any legal orders relating to internet restrictions.

Among the questions requiring answers are:

  • Who authorised the use of force?
  • What threat justified the decision at that time?
  • Were warnings given before force was used?
  • Were safe exit routes available?
  • Were people struck after dispersal had begun?
  • Were restrained or injured individuals assaulted?
  • Who were the plain-clothed men?
  • Under what authority were they carrying lathis?
  • Were they police personnel, authorised assistants or private individuals?
  • Who supervised their actions?
  • Was the internet shutdown lawfully authorised?

An investigation into police conduct should be independent of the officers whose actions are under examination in order to maintain public confidence.

Injuries to Police Also Require Investigation

Reports that police personnel were injured should not be ignored.

Attacks on law enforcement officers, destruction of public property and violence during protests are unlawful and those responsible should be prosecuted according to law.

At the same time, injuries sustained by police do not automatically legalise every use of force against every person in the crowd. Police powers exist to prevent ongoing threats, not to impose collective punishment.

The same legal standards must apply equally to protesters, police personnel, public officials and any private individuals who may have participated unlawfully.

My Final Opinion

The available evidence does not support the claim that the entire protest was peaceful. Some participants may have broken barricades, thrown stones, damaged property or assaulted police personnel. Those responsible should be identified and prosecuted through lawful investigation.

At the same time, publicly available videos raise significant concerns that police action may, in some instances, have exceeded what was necessary for crowd control. The apparent presence of unidentified plain-clothed individuals carrying lathis alongside uniformed police further increases the importance of transparency.

Current evidence does not conclusively establish that these individuals were "goondas hired by the police," but neither does it explain who they were or under what authority they acted. Clarification from the authorities would help address legitimate public concerns.

In a constitutional democracy, allegations of excessive force cannot be resolved solely through competing political claims. They require evidence, transparency, independent investigation and equal application of the law.

Accountability must extend to anyone who violated the law—whether a violent protester, a police officer, an unidentified individual exercising coercive authority or a public official responsible for unlawful conduct.

Demanding accountability is not opposition to law enforcement. It is a fundamental requirement of constitutional governance and the rule of law.