BEENU RAWAT & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                    [2013] 12 S.C.R. 889


                  BEENU RAWAT & ORS                            A
                              v.
                 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
           (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 446 of 2013)

                   NOVEMBER 19, 2013
                                                               B
        [G.S. SINGHVI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND
                  C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

       Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.21 - Human Rights -
 Rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the C
 individual - Protest/ agitation by petitioners at Police station
 seeking registration of FIR in respect of an alleged occurrence
·of rape - Petitioners allegedly rounded up by policemen and
 mercilessly beaten by them - Injuries caused to petitioners
 in the incident - Petitioners seeking independent o
 investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the
 incident of alleged police atrocities - Grievance of petitioners
 that they were subjected to excessive use of force and abuses
 etc. and hence they were deprived of their fundamental right
 to a life of dignity - Counter plea of respondents that the E
 petitioners had vandalized the police station and caused
 damage to the public property ~nd that the police resorted to
 the minimal use of force only enough to disperse the large
 violent crowd - Held: The petitioners are ordinary persons with
 clean antecedents - The fact that the video footage recorded F
 at the instance of the police does not show acts of rioting or
 any arms or brickbats in the hands of the protestors and the
 recording was stopped as soon as police started using lathis
  upon the protestors, make it clear, at least prima facie, that
 in the incident in question, peaceful protestors were subjected G
  to beating by lathis etc. by the police force which included
  policemen from the concerned police station as well as force
  called from adjoining police station - Counter version of the
  respondents that the petitioners indulged in rioting and
                             889                                H
    890     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A damaged public property neither supported by photographs
  nor by the video footage - In that view of the matter, the whole
  incident requires to be investigated/enquired by an
  independent agency or by a Special Investigation Team (SIT)
  - NHRC directed to enquire into the complaint of the
B petitioners regarding violation of their fundamental rights
  particularly u/Article 21 of the Constitution - Protection of
  Human Rights Act, 1993 - s.12A, 13 & 14.

        The petitioners claim to be volunteers of 'Aam Aadmi
  Party'(AAP). They approached this Court under Article 32
C of the Constitution inter alia seeking issuance of a writ
  of mandamus or any other writ or direction to order
  independent investigation by a Special Investigation
  Team (SIT) into the incident of police atrocities which
  allegedly took place on 19.06.2013 at Gokul Puri Police
D Station in Delhi against the petitioners and if such
  allegations were found correct, issuance of further
  consequential and necessary directions, including
  initiation of -criminal prosecution as well as disciplinary ·
  proceedings against the errant police officials of the Delhi
E Police.

       The incident of 19.06.2013 at Gokal Puri Police
  Station in Delhi occurred in course of a protest by the
  volunteers of AAP. The protestors wanted registration of
F an FIR in respect of an alleged occurrence of rape but
  allegedly the police was reluctant to register the FIR and
  hence a number of volunteers Including the petitioners
  joined the protest. It is the case of the petitioners that they
  were suddenly rounded up by a large number of
G policemen and mercilessly beaten by them. Initially,
  police arrested seventeen volunteers but three of them
  were let off as they were minor girls. Subsequently,
  petitioner Nos. 2 and 10 were also taken into custody and
  allegedly beaten in police custody. The nineteen
H petitioners claim to have sustained serious injuries on
  head, back, arm and legs.
     BEENU RAWAT & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA              891


     The respondents, on the other hand, submitted there A
was no lapse on behalf of the police to help the
prosecutrix and the police resorted to the minimal use of
force only enough to disperse the large violent crowd and
safeguard the police personnel trapped inside the police
station. It was alleged that the protestors had entered the B
premises, blocked entry to the police station, pelted
stones and damaged public property, and that the violent
acts of the crowd caused injuries to five police personnel
and that FIR had been registered against the protestors
 bearing no.251113 for rioting etc.                         c
     The question which, therefore, arose for
consideration before this Court was whether the
petitioners had made out a case that their fundamental
right to live with human dignity guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution had been invaded, atleast prima facie, D
so as to direct for an independent investigation/enquiry
so that the perpetrators may not get away scot free if
petitioners' case was found true.

    Allowing the writ petition, the Court                    E
     HELD: 1. In part Ill of the Constitution of India, Article
21. enjoys special status. Right to life and Right to liberty
are of historical importance. The law is now well settled
that the State or its functionaries cannot deprive any
person of his life which includes right to live with human F
dignity except in accordance with law. The maximum
threat to such fundamental right is perceptible when any
kind of protest or agitation is directed against the police
force for reasons which are self-evident. Police is licensed
to carry arms for protecting the people. This itself creates G
a situation where the power of arms may be misused
 under the mistaken belief in the absolutism of the police
 power or on account of lack of sensitivity to the
 democratic rights of the people to register peaceful
 protest, against wrongs, especially that of public H
    892    SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A functionaries. The submissions on behalf of respondents
  that nobody can be permitted to paralyse the functioning
  of police or other State institutions in a name of public
  protest cannot be rejected off hand because it is only a
  corollary of the right to protest peacefully; proverbially
B the other side of the coin which corroborates the well
  accepted principle that rights without duties tend to
  degenerate into license for misuse of rights. In a given
  case, the facts may lead to such conclusions. Hence
  facts and circumstances in such cases need to be
c scrutinized carefully. [Para 12] [901-B-G]
       2. In the present case also, the relevant facts are
  required to be noticed in order to arrive at a conclusion
  whether the petitioners' prayers deserve to be allowed or
  not. The petitioners are ordinary persons with clean
D antecedents. The injuries caused to the petitioners in the
  incident have not been denied as they are supported by
  medical reports. So far as injuries to some of the police
  officers are concerned, order dated 22.06.2013 passed by
  the Vacation Judge (NE)/Additional Ses•sions Judge may
E be referred to. While granting bail to 11 applicants, the
  said Judge had noted that the MLCs of five police
  officials indicate that they have suffered from minor
  injuries which were in the form of scratches and abrasion
  only and the FIR does not indicate that the lady police
F officials were assaulted or any attempt to outrage their
  modesty was made by the accused persons. [Para 13]
  [901-G-H; 902-A-C]
      3. A claim was made that unlawful acts of the
  protestors had been recorded through videography
G which was available with the respondents, however, the
  video footage shown to this Court revealed that none of
  the protestors were carrying any arms or even brickbats
  in course of the protest. The initial part of the incident
  discloses lack of any bitterness and almost a friendly
H atmosphere. Thereafter, when copy of the FIR was shown
     BEENU RAWAT & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA             893


from a distance but not made available to any one, the A
slogans increased and the tone could be perceived by
some persons as irritating. Barring some protestors, rest
were pushed out of the gate of police station without any
resistance or any untoward incident. The crowd outside
the gate apparently did not disperse. The last part of the B
video footage fleetingly shows use of lathis by the police
men upon the protestors. Thereafter, the recording was
stopped and appears to have been resumed after lapse
of sometime to show some broken glass panes,
 brickbats in very limited number and some broken c
 spectacles lying on the ground, a grim reminder of use
 of force. [Para 14] [902-D-G]

      4. There is no dispute that petitioners have received
injuries but according to counter affidavit, these were due
to some of the protestors falling down on the vehicles D
parked along the walls of the compound and there was
no lathi charge or any act of beating of the protestors.
Such statement in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit
cannot be accepted in view of the last part of the video
footage. A glimpse of action taken by the police is E
available in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit wherein
it is claimed that Police resorted to minimal use of force
which was only enough to disperse a large violent crowd
and safeguard the police personnel. No part of the video
footage shows the crowd to be very large or indulging F
in any physical violence. Even if this version in the
counter affidavit is accepted in part, one is left to wonder
why the petitioners who had injuries on their bodies had
to be arrested instead of allowing them to disperse with
the crowd which was allegedly large and violent. It is also G
 intriguing as to why the FIR bearing No.251/13 for rioting
 etc. was registered against the petitioners at 5.35 p.m.
 after eighteen persons were apprehended at 3.30 p.m.
 and not before their arrest if they had vandalized the
                                                             H
        894     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 12 S.C.R.
/

    A   police station and caused damage to the public property.
        [Para 17] [903-F-H; 904-A-C]

           5. The fact that the video footage recorded at the
      instance of the police does not show acts of rioting or
      any arms or brickbats in the hands of the protestors and
    8
      the recording was stopped as soon as police started
      using lathis upon the protestor, make it clear, at least
      prima facie, that in the incident in question, peaceful
      protestors were subjected to beating by lathis etc. by the
      police force which included policemen from the
    C concerned police station as well as force called from
      adjoining police station, P.S. Jyoti Nagar and P.S.
      Bhajanpura. The counter version of the respondents that
      the petitioners indulged in rioting and damaged public
      property is neither supported by photographs nor by the
    D video footage. In that view of the matter, the whole
      incident of 19.06.2013 at Gokul Puri Police Station, District
      North-East, Delhi requires to be investigated/enquired by
      an independent agency or by a Special Investigation
      Team. [Para 18] [904-C-G]
    E
           6. So far as investigation of the FIR No. 251/13 is
      concerned, it has rightly been transferred from police
      station Gokal Puri to a Special Investigation Team.
      However that cannot take care of the petitioners'
    F grievances that they have been subjected to excessive
      use of force and abuses etc. and that thu force used was
      not at all justified and hence they have been deprived of
      their fundamental right to a life of dignity. In view of the
      prima facie findings, it is clear that the grievances of the
    G petitioners require investigation by an authority having
      statutory jurisdiction in such matters. If the State had itself
      suggested names of the persons who could constitute
      Special Investigation Team for the purpose, the matter
      would have been different and this Court could have
      considered to direct for formation of such a team by the
    H
     BEENU RAWAT & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA                   895


State by selecting persons from the names suggested by A
the parties. But in the absence of such option, the National
Human Rights Commission is directed to enquire into the
complaint of the petitioners regarding violation of their
fundamental rights particularly one under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Such direction is granted in view of B
Section 12(A) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Under that Act the definition of "Human Rights" is large
enough to include rights relating to life, liberty, equality
and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the
Constitution. Consequential directions given by this c
Court. [Para 20) [905-E-H; 906-A-B]

     ORIGINAL CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 446 of 2013.

    Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.                 D
   Shanti Bhushan, Rohit K. Singh, Kartik Seth, Rishikesh
Kumar, Prashant Bhushan for the Petitioners.

   Siddharth Luthra, ASG, Supriya Juneja, R. Nedumaran, R.
Nandakumar for the Respondents.                                    E

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. The petitioners claim to be
young volunteers of 'Aam Aadmi Party' (AAP) engaged in             F
selfless work for the improvement of democratic institutions of
this country and also fight for justice. The~' have approached
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking
the following reliefs:

    "(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction G
    to order an independent investigation by a· Special
    Investigation Team into the abovementioned incident of
    police atrocities which took place on 19.06.2013 at Gokul
    Puri Police Station against the petitioners and if such
    allegations are found correct, pass further consequential H
    896       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 12 S.C.R.

A         and necessary directions, including ini1iation of criminal
          prosecution as well as disciplinary proceedings against
          the police officers of the Delhi Police found involved and
          also against those senior police officers at whose behest
          this vindictive act of atrocity was done;
B
          (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction
          to award monetary compensation to the petitioners for their
          illegal arrest and torture by the Delhi Police which has
          resulted in gross violation of their fundamental rights to Jive
          with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
c         Constitution of India;

          (c) pass such other and further order/s as this Hon'ble
          Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the
          circumstances of the case."
D
          2. The incident of 19.06.2013 at Gokal Puri Police Station
  in Delhi which is mentioned in prayer no. (a) noted above,
  occurred in course of a protest by the volunteers of (AAP) at
  Gokal Puri Police Station since morning hours. The protesters
E wanted registration of an FIR in respect of an alleged
  occurrence of rape of a poor woman by two persons in
  Bhagirathi Vihar. Allegedly the police was reluctant to register
  the FIR and hence a number of .volunteers including the
  petitioners joined the protest. The FIR was ultimately registered
F around 2.30 p.m. and the protesters were informed of the
  same. A demand was made for a copy of the FIR. According
  to respondents the copy could not be given to others because
  of the nature of the alleged crime which requires that name of
  the victim be not disclosed. According to petitioners the copy
  of the FIR was not given even to victim's husband. It is the case
G of the petitioners that when they were planning to wind up the
  protest, they were suddenly rounded up by a large number of
  policemen and mercilessly beaten by them. The manner of
  chase and beating by lathi gave an impression to the
  petitioners that the police action was not to disperse the
H petitioners but to teach them a lesson. As per allegations, the
      BEENU RAWAT & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA                      897
             [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

police also used abusive language and told the protestors that         A
they will be taught a lesson so that they do not indulge in such
kind of protests in future. Initially, police arrested seventeen
volunteers but three of them were let off as they were minor girls.
Subsequently, petitioner Nos. 2 and 10 were also taken into
custody and allegedly beaten in police custody although they           B
claimed that they had come to the police station later only to
enquire about the incident. The nineteen petitioners claim to
have sustained serious injuries on head, back, arm and legs.
One of them (petitioner no.17) has sustained fracture in lower
ulna but he managed to run away.                                       c
      3. According to the case of the petitioners the police had
 indulged in unlawful use of force and inflicted injuries before
arrest and also during custody, leading to injuries· to the
petitioners; the arrest was unlawful which is sought to be
justified by fabricated evidence for rioting etc.; by breaking         D
window glasses and tearing of some papers in the police
station. According to the petitioners a serious case was
attempted to be made out through subsequent statement of one
ASI of police, Ms. Sushila. There is no such incident mentioned
 in the FIR bearing no. 251/2013 dated 19.06.2013 registered           E
at P.S. Gokul Puri and even before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate she had alleged that only her scarf (dupatta) was
pulled by protestors. The petitioners have claimed that the
Commissioner of police, Delhi, has made an incorrect
statement that Delhi police has videos of protestors vandalizing       F
the police station. To decide the case it is not necessary for
this Court to delve deep into allegations made by the petitioners
or those against them by the police which has lodged a criminal
case of rioting etc. as noted above. This is because there is
no prayer made in this writ petition seeking any kind of               G
intervention in the investigation of police case registered
against the petitioners. Even the first prayer made by the
petitioners is to order an independent investigation by a
Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the incident of 19.06.2013
to find out the truthfulness of allegations of police atrocities and   H1
    898      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A if such allegations are found right the;n further consequential
  orders be passed for criminal prbsecution as well as.
  disciplinary action against the concerned police officers. Hence,
  the issue before the Court is a limited one requiring a careful
  appraisal of relevant facts and circumstances for coming to a
B conclusion as to whether the petitioners have made out a case
  for issuing a direction to order an independent investigation into
  the alleged incident of 19.06.2013 at Gokal Puri Police Station,
  Delhi or not.

         4. In this background a look at the counter affidavit on behalf
C   of the respondents discloses that the version given by the police
    attempts to portray a picture that when the prosecutrix or the
    victim of alleged rape came to the police station along with her
    husband at about 9.00 a.m. on 19.06.2013, the S.H.O.
    immediately deputed a lady A.S.I., Ms. Sushila to investigate
D   into the matter and a female counselor, Mrs. Dinesh Panchal
    from a local NGO was also called for the aid of prosecutrix. A
    Daily Diary entry to this effect bearing no.11-A was made at
    9.10 a.m. and a statement of the victim was recorded by the
    lady A.S.I. in presence of counselor from the NGO. On that basis
E   FIR No. 250/13 was registered under Section 376-D/506 of the
    Indian Penal Code at 10.05 a.m. and thereafter the victim was
    sent for medical examination to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,
    New Delhi. The fact of lodging of the FIR was conveyed to the
    protesters but still by 12.00 noon their number increased to
F   100-125 which included 20-25 women. A lady ASI was
    deputed to control the female protesters. Demand for getting
    a copy of FIR was declined by the S.H.O. with a view not to
    reveal the identity of the victim.

G        5. It is found that the counter version does not deny or even
    refer to the presence of husband of the victim and there is no
    disclosure of any reason as to why copy of the FIR was not
    supplied to the victim or her husband. Had that been done, the
    bone of contention between the rivals could have been totally
    taken care of.
H
     BEENU RAWAT & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA                    899
            [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

      6. According to the counter affidavit the protesters were A
all around the compound of the police station and had also
entered the corridor thus blocking the entry and exit of the
officials and obstructing them in performing their official duties.
The protesters climbed the compound walls and shouted
slogans. They abused the police officials and some of them B
pelted stones causing damage to building windows and
vehicles. The police staff was trapped inside the police station
being out-numbered by the large number of protesters. The
violent acts of the crowd allegedly caused injuries to five police
personnels. Their injury reports hav~ been annexed as c
Annexure R.1 (colly). The lady AS.I. engaged in controlling the
women protesters was manhandled by the crowd and sustained
injuries. To support the claim that protesters had entered the
premises, blocked entry to the police station, pelted stones and
damaged public property, some photographs have been
                                                                    0
brought on record as Annexure R.2 (colly) .
              •
     7. Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit is crucial as it
relates to the most significant part of the incident in. which
injuries were caused to some of the petitioners leading to their
arrest. Paragraph 5 runs as follows:-                              E.
          · ·s. As the crowd had become uncontrollable, the
      SHO, PS Gokul Puri reported the situation to the senior
      officers and asked for the deployment of additional police
      force from adjoining Police Stations, PS Jyoti Nagar and F
      PS Bhajan Pura, to control the crowd. With the help of the
      additional force, efforts were made to dispers.e the crowd .
      and help the officials trapped inside the Police Station
    · Gokul Puri. Arrival of the additional force from the adjoining
      police stations created panic amongst the protesters and
      they started dispersing in various directions. Some of the G
      protesters who had climbed the walls of the Police Station
      fell down on the vehicles parked by the wall and sustained
       injuries on their own. There was no lathi charge or any act

                                                                   H.
     900      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 12 S.C.R.


 A         of beating of the protesters as wrongly alleged by the
           Petitioners."

           8. It has also been disclosed in the counter affidavit that
    till 3.30 p.m. eighteen persons were apprehended on the spot
    which included three minor girls, four women and eleven men.
  8 FIR was registered against the protesters bearing no.251/13
    at 5.35 p.m.' The three minor girls were let off at about 7.00 p.m.
    when their parents arrived. The remaining fifteen were however
    arrested. They were sent for medical examination to Ram
    Manohar Lohiya Hospital and then produced before the Duty
. C Magistrate at 2.20 a.m. in the morning and then sent to Tihar
    jail. Petitioner No. 10-Narender Rawat, brother of minor
    petitioner no.1 Beenu Rawat and also petitioner no.4-Pushpa
    is claimed to have been arrested in the morning of 20.06.2013
    because he had escaped on the previous date. Petitioner
  D No.17 along with four other persons had also allegedly escaped
    and they were arrested on 21.08.2013.

         9. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit a submission has
   been advanced that petitioners are trying to mislead this Court
 E by making wrong allegations that police used excessive force
   against them. The defense in this paragraph is that 'the
   protesters had outnumbered and over run the police officers at
   police station Gokal Puri, obstructing them from performing their
   official duties and caused damage to public property on the
 F pretext·of helping a .rape victim.

        10. According to respondents, there was no lapse on
   behalf of the police to help the ·prosecutrix and the police
   resorted to the minimal use of force only ~nough to disperse
   the large violent crowd and safeguard the police personnel
 G trapped inside the police station.

         11. As indicated earlier, at the present stage when the
    criminal case is under investigation it will not be proper for this
    Court to finally decide any issue relating to that case. The
  H pendency of investigation in that case notwithstanding, this Court
      BEENU RAWAT & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA                     901
             [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

has to decide the limited issue whether petitioners have made A
out a case that their fundamental right to live with human dignity
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been
invaded, atleast prima facie, so as to direct for an independent
investigation/enquiry so that the perpetrators may not get away
scot free if petitioners' case is found true.                      B

      12. In part Ill of the Constitution of India Article 21 enjoys
special status. Right to life and Right to liberty are of historical
importance. Rise of modern democratic state is attributable to
a long drawn battle waged by ordinary people against the
sovereign power. The law is now well settled that the State or         C
its functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life which
includes right to live with human dignity except in accordance
with law. The maximum threat to such fundamental right is
perceptible when any kind of protest or agitation is directed
against the police force for reasons which are self-evident.           D
 Police is licensed to carry arms for protecting the people. This
itself creates a situation where the power of arms may be
 misused under the mistaken belief in the absolutism of the
 police power or on account of lack of sensitivity to the
 democratic rights of the people to register peaceful protest,         E
 against wrongs, especially that of public functionaries. The
 submissions on behalf of respondents that nobody can be
 permitted to paralyse the functioning of police or other State
 institutions in a name of public protest can not be rejected off
 hand because it is only a corollary of the right to protest           F
 peacefully; proverbially the other side of the coin which
 corroborates the well accepted principle that rights without
 duties tend to degenerate into license for misuse of rights. In a
 given case, the facts may lead to such conclusions. Hence facts
 and circumstances in such cases need to be scrutinized                G
 carefully.

     13. In the present case also the relevant facts require to
be noticed in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the
petitione-rs' prayers deserve to be allowed or not. The
                                                                       H
     902      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 12 S.C.R.


 A   petitioners are ordinary persons with clean antecedents. The
     injuries caused to the petitioners in the incide:nt have not been
     denied as they are supported by medical reports. So far as
     injuries to some of the police officers are concerned, instead
     of forming our own opinion, we may only refer to the order dated
 B   22.06.2013 passed by the Vacation Judge (NE)/Additional
     Sessions Judge contained in Annexure P.11. While granting
     bail to 11 applicants, in paragraph 6, the learned Judge had
     noted that the MLCs of five police officials indicate that they
     have suffered from minor injuries which were in the form of
 c   scratches and abrasion only and the FIR does not indicate that
     the lady police officials were assaulted or any attempt to outrage
     their modesty was made by the accused persons.

          14. Since a claim was made that unlawful acts of the
     protesters had been recorded through videography which was
  D available with the respondents, learned Additional Solicitor
     General Sidharth Luthra made arrangements for screening of
    the video tape for our perusal. The video footage shown to us
     revealed that none of the protesters were carrying any arms or
    even brickbats in course of the protest. The initial part of the
  E incident discloses lack of any bitterness and almost a friendly
    atmosphere. Thereafter, when copy of the FIR was shown from
    a distance but not made available to any one, the slogans
    increased and the tone could be perceived by some persons
    as irritating. Barring some protesters rest were pushed out of
· F the gate of police station without any resistance or any untoward
    incident. The crowd outside the gate: apparently did not
    disperse. The last part of the video footage fleetingly shows use
    of lathis by the police men upon the protesters. Thereafter, the
    recording was stopped and appears to have been resumed
 G after lapse of sometime to show some broken glass panes,
    brickbats in very limited number and some broken spectacles
    lying on the ground, a grim reminder of use of force.

         15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners Mr. Shanti
     Bhushan has relied upon some past incidents, specially one
H
     BEENU RAWAT & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA                     903
            [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

relating to unfortunate death of a police constable in the course A
of demonstration against the gang rape to a paramedical
student "Damini" in December, 2012, followed by another
unfortunate case of a five years' old victim "Gudiya" which led
to protest by members of AAP and in course of the same
petitioner no.1 was slapped by an Assistant Commissioner of B
Police of Delhi force 1which led to suspension of the said ACP.
He also referred to some allegations against the erstwhile Delhi
 Police commissioner. On the basis of those incidents and
 allegation it was submitted that Delhi police cannot be relied
 for fair investigation in a case of present nature involving c
 members of 'AAP' and therefore the Court should order for fair
 investigation by an independent agency.

    16. On the other hand, Mr. Luthra submitted that police itself
acted fairly and did not submit charge-sheet against any of the
accused persons arrested for causing death of constable              D
Subhash Tomar. He pointed out that the concerned ACP who
had slapped petitioner No.1 was placed under suspension.
According to him the allegations that the erstwhile Delhi Police
Commissioner was close to a white collared criminal, has no
substance and that matter cannot have any effect upon the            E
investigation of the present incident.

       17. In our considered view it is not necessary to examine
 the effect of earlier incidents for the purpose of deciding the
 present writ petition. There is no dispute that petitioners have
 received injuries but according to counter affidavit, these were
 due to some of the protestors falling down on the vehicles
 parked along the walls of the compound and there was no lathi
 charge or any act of beating of the protestors. Such statement
 in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit cannot be accepted in       G
 view of the last part of the video footage already noted earlier.
 A glimpse of action taken by the police is available in
  paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit wherein it is claimed that
  Police resorted to minimal use of force which was only enough
  to disperse a large violent crowd and safeguard the police
                                                                     H
     904 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A personnel. No part of the video footage shows the crowd to be
  very large or indulging in any physical violence. Even if this
  version in the counter affidavit is accepted in part, one is left
  to wonder why the petitioners who had injuries on their bodies
  had to be arrested instead of allowing them to disperse with
B the crowd which was allegedly large and violent. It is also
  intriguing as to why the FIR bearing No.2fi1/13 for rioting etc.
  was registered at 5.35 p.m. after eighteen persons were
  apprehended at 3.30 p.m. and not before their arrest if they had
  vandalized the police station and caused damage to the public
c property.

           18. In the light of the aforesaid discussions and the fact
     that the video footage recorded at the instance of the police
     does not show acts of rioting or any arms or brickbats in the
     hands of the protesters and the recording was stopped as soon
D    as police started using lathis upon the protester, we are left with
     no option but to hold, at least prima facie, that in the incident
     in question, peaceful protestors were subjected to beating by
     lathis etc. by the police force which included policemen from
    the concerned police station as well as force called from
E   adjoining police station, P.S. Jyoti Nagar and P.S. Bhajanpura.
    The counter version of the respondents that the petitioners
    indulged in rioting and damaged public property is neither
    supported by photographs contained in Annexure R.2 (colly) nor
    by the video footage shows to this Court. In that view of the
F   matter, the whole incident of 19.06.2013 at Gokul Puri Police
    Station, District North-East, Delhi requires to be investigated/
    enquired by an independent agency or by a Special
    Investigation Team. Considering the possibility of our arriving
    at this opinion we had requested learned counsel for the rival
G   parties to provide us proposals containing names of some
    persons who could be entrusted with conducting investigation
    in the said incident. On behalf of the petitioners two names have
    been proposed which are as follows:

          1.    Sh. l.C.Dwivedi, IPS (RTD.), Former Director
H
    BEENU RAWAT & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA                 905
           [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
          General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Address: 9/26,    A
          Vishal Khand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow.

     2.   Sh. N.Dilip Kumar, IPS (Retired) Special
          Commissioner Delhi Police also worked as Joint
          Commissioner of police (Vigilance) Delhi Police B
          Worked in CBI for seven years Address: 16 A,
          Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.

     19. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents only
a letter addressed to Sh. Sidharth Luthra, leaned Additional
Solicitor General along with copy of an order dated 31.10.2013 C
issued from the office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has
been submitted to us to show that since during the course of
hearing of this matter this Court had expressed the need for
an impartial or fair investigation by some other competent
setup, the Commissioner of Police Delhi has approved for D
formation of a Special Investigation Team headed by Sh.
 Bhisham Singh DCP/Crime to work under close supervision of
 Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, Delhi.
      20. So far as investigation of the FIR No. 251/13 is E
concerned, in our considered view it has rightly been transferred
from police station Gokal Puri to a Special Investigation Team.
However that can not take care of the petitioners' grievances
that they have been subjected to excessive use of force and
abuses etc. and that the force used was not at all justified and
hence they have been deprived of their fundamental right to a F
life of dignity. In view of our prima facie findings noted above,
we are of the view that the grievances of the petitioners require
investigation by an authority having statutory jurisdiction in such
 matters. If the State had itself suggested names of the persons
 who could constitute Special Investigation Team for the G
 purpose, the matter would have been different and we could
 have considered to direct for formation of such a team by the
 State by selecting persons from the names suggested by the
 parties. But in the absence of such option, we direct the
 National Human Rights Commission to enquire into the K
    906       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A   complaint of the petitioners regardin!J violation of their
    fundamental rights particularly one under Article 21 of the
    Constitution of India. Such direction is granted in view of
    Section 12(A) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
    Under that Act the definition of "Human Rights" is large enough
8   to include rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of
    theJndividual guaranteed by the Constitution. In that view of the
    matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
    directions:-

                (1) Investigation of FIR No.251/13, as per order of
c         the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, dated 31.10.2013 shall
          be carried out by Special Investigation Team and not by
          the police officials of P.S. Gokul Puri.

                 (2) The complaint of the petitioners as made before
D         this Court regarding violation of their fundamental right to
          life and liberty shall be enquired into by the National Human
          Rights Commission expeditiously. For that purpose the
          Commission may use its statutory powers including those·
          under Sections 13 and 14 of the Protection of Human
E         Rights Act, 1993.

               (3) The Commission shall take further required steps
          and action as per law after concluding the enquiry/
          investigation so that persons(s) found guilty may be
          subjected to required penalty according to law, without
F         undue delay.

          21. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

    8.8.8.                                     Writ Petition allowed.