Police Association Defends Actions Amid July 20 Violence

The Delhi Police Mahasangh, an association of retired Delhi Police officers, held a press conference on Friday to defend the force’s handling of a violent protest on July 20. Retired ACP KP Kukreti said the gathering, led by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), became an unlawful assembly when participants turned violent, leaving officers with no choice but to act to protect Parliament and public property.

Kukreti argued that once a crowd uses stones, sticks and other projectiles, breaks barricades, and ignores warnings issued under Section 163, every member can be held liable. He insisted that allowing protesters to enter Parliament would have caused “international embarrassment” and a far more serious security crisis. “The law provides that, in extreme circumstances, if a police officer’s life is under threat … the officer is empowered to take whatever action is justified at the scene,” he said.

The retired officer also raised the issue of police injuries, asking who would answer for the 128 personnel hurt during the clashes. “If we are being accused of attacking them, then who attacked us? We want an answer to that question,” he said.

The Legal and Political Ramifications of the Police Defense

The Legal Justification Behind the Police Action

Kukreti’s defense rests on well-established legal principles: an assembly can be declared unlawful once it turns violent, and every participant may then be held criminally liable. The reference to Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—which allows police to use force to disperse an unlawful assembly—provides a statutory shield for the officers’ decision. By emphasizing that neither the Governor, Chief Minister, nor Home Minister is present at such moments, the association underscores that operational decisions lie solely with senior officers on the spot.

Advertisement

Shifting the Blame to the Crowd

The press conference also represents an attempt to reframe the narrative around the protest. By foregrounding the 128 injured police personnel, the retired officers aim to counter allegations of excessive force. The question “who attacked us?” is designed to place responsibility squarely on the protesters and challenge the opposition’s depiction of the event. For the government, this narrative aligns with a law-and-order stance, but critics will likely argue that it sidesteps questions about proportionality and the right to peaceful protest.