'Roaming free & browbeating child': SC fumes over harassment of minor CJP protester

NEW DELHI: Taking serious note of the alleged harassment of a minor girl who had participated in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests at Jantar Mantar in July, the Supreme Court on Thursday said nobody can be allowed to intimidate a victim for pursuing a criminal case.

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought reports from Delhi and Uttar Pradesh on the allegations and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure action on the girl's FIR.

"Such matters cannot be taken lightly. Nobody should be protected if violence against a child is involved... if persons accused of such acts were roaming free and attempting to browbeat the child or her family so that they do not pursue criminal proceedings, it would be a serious matter," the CJI said.

The counsel argued that the 14-year-old girl had joined the CJP's protest march on July 20 at Jantar Mantar. Her father was allegedly assaulted during the protest by Hindutva influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj, who later claimed in a video that he had attacked him. Following the incident, the girl filed an FIR. Her house was allegedly vandalised and stones were allegedly pelted at it thereafter.

The lawyer alleged that police, instead of prosecuting those accompanying the accused who were caught on camera, registered an FIR against the child, violating the Supreme Court's earlier order protecting CJP protesters from coercive action.

The counsel further submitted that a video of the stone pelting at the residence could be placed on record and that the committee would take time, but the child needed immediate protection.

The accused, identified as Swatantra Bhardwaj, a Hindutva influencer, was initially booked under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly causing hurt and wrongful restraint, and was detained for a few hours. He later posted a video claiming that he had "cracked the skull" of the girl's father and was released due to his proximity to the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

After CJP leaders protested at the Parliament Street police station along with the girl and her father, Delhi Police added provisions of the SC/ST Act and criminal intimidation and arrested him. He is currently in judicial custody.

The apex court has sought a status report on security arrangements and action taken over the alleged harassment.

Meanwhile, the same Bench on Thursday also sought responses from the Centre, Delhi Police and others on a plea against the closure of 17 metro stations in the city during the CJP protests. The court issued notice after hearing a plea filed by advocate Sparsh Kant Nayak.

It also expressed its reluctance to reconstitute the High-Powered Enquiry/Expert Committee (HPEC) constituted to inquire into the violence surrounding the student protests, responding to submissions that the presence of a former Director General of Police (DGP) on the panel raised apprehensions of bias. The top court refused to entertain a plea filed by certain protesters seeking reconstitution of the panel.

Earlier, on August 20, the Supreme Court in its order had set up an HPEC to inquire into the allegations of police excesses, headed by Justice (Retd.) R Subhash Reddy, former judge of the Supreme Court, as chairperson, along with four other members. They were Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as member; Justice Shalinder Kaur, former judge of the Delhi High Court, as member; Rishi Kumar Shukla, former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); and Dr L R Bishnoi, retired Director General of Police, Meghalaya.

The three-judge Bench, headed by CJI Kant, had passed the order on a batch of petitions challenging alleged police excesses against CJP protesters at Jantar Mantar on July 20.

The batch of pleas was filed against the alleged excessive force used by police during the protest at Jantar Mantar in the national capital and sought an SIT or CBI probe.