If even half of what these men describe is true, something has gone badly wrong in how India’s capital handles dissent.
According to a report in The Indian Express, at least three men detained by Delhi Police during the CJP protests allege that they were assaulted in custody. Protesters were bundled into buses and taken to makeshift detention centres. The accounts that emerged afterward raise serious questions about police conduct, custodial safeguards and the treatment of dissent in a democracy.
What the Detainees Say
Nihal Alam, 36, from Kishanganj in Bihar, says he had no involvement in the protest. He was in Delhi to visit his sister in Bawana. Believing the protests were over, he travelled by metro to Connaught Place to buy clothes.
According to Alam, police picked him up and took him to a community centre in Pandwalan Khurd. He alleges that officers beat him with sticks inside a bus fitted with iron-barred partitions. He says he told them his right arm was hurting, but they ignored him.
Medical records reportedly show a radial head fracture near his right elbow. A doctor advised further imaging to examine the bones and joint structures. Alam says he was told he would need a rod, costing around ₹20,000. He runs an eatery in his village and plans to ask his family for the money.
Arjun Unnikrishnan, 30, a law graduate and researcher, alleges that personnel inside the centre struck detainees across their bodies, kicked them and hit them in their private parts. He says the cramped conditions left people barely able to move. After his release, he went directly to a hospital because he wanted his injuries documented while the evidence was fresh.
Fidal Tom, 26, a Delhi-based lawyer, says he was detained near the Sanjay Colony police post under Maidangarhi police station. He alleges that police beat him there before holding him with other detainees and releasing him at around 2 am.
His medico-legal certificate reportedly records multiple injuries, including swelling and an abrasion on his face, along with bruising on both arms and his back. The examination found that the injuries were most likely caused by multiple instances of blunt-object trauma.
Tom’s account of what allegedly happened inside the detention facility is particularly disturbing. He says a man in civilian clothes, rather than a police uniform, was beating detainees in a room. When Tom questioned the man’s authority, he alleges, the man dragged him into a small bathroom, where around ten police personnel hit him with lathis.
According to Tom, the beating stopped only after he identified himself as an advocate and showed his Bar Association identification card. He also mentioned that he had appeared in court alongside senior advocate Kapil Sibal on October 9.
Consider what that detail implies. If Tom’s account is accurate, identifying himself as a lawyer reportedly helped stop the assault. Alam, an eatery owner from Bihar who says he was simply out shopping, had no comparable protection.
The Pattern Matters More Than Any Single Case
Three men detained at different points have described custodial beatings, with separate medico-legal records reportedly documenting injuries. Their accounts warrant a thorough and independent investigation, not dismissal as isolated complaints.
India has a long history of students and young people taking to the streets over education, jobs, examinations, fees and civil rights. Peaceful protest is a legitimate part of democratic life. A government confident in its policies should be able to hear protesters out, defend its decisions and allow the courts to resolve legal disputes.
Yet the response to dissent too often risks becoming a matter of force rather than engagement. Detention buses, mass arrests and allegations of violence can turn a public demonstration into a test of how much authority the state is willing to exercise over its citizens.
This case also raises an important question about the distinction between protesters and bystanders. Alam says he was shopping and had no part in the demonstration. If people are detained en masse without properly establishing their involvement, the result is punishment for being in the wrong place rather than accountability for specific conduct.
The use of makeshift detention centres in community halls also deserves scrutiny. Such facilities must not become spaces where ordinary safeguards are weakened or ignored. Authorities should be able to establish who was detained, on what grounds, where they were taken and whether they had timely access to legal assistance, medical care and their families.
The Official Response
Asked about the allegations, a senior police official told The Indian Express that no complaints had been received and that action would follow if a complaint was filed, in accordance with the law.
That response deserves scrutiny.
Expecting a man with a fractured arm, or someone who has just endured a night in detention, to approach a police station and file a complaint against the police is a considerable demand. People alleging custodial violence may fear retaliation or doubt whether their complaints will be investigated fairly.
Where credible allegations are accompanied by medical records, the authorities should not rely solely on whether a formal complaint has been submitted. They should take steps to establish what happened.
An independent, magistrate-led inquiry would be a reasonable starting point. The authorities should also preserve and examine relevant CCTV footage, detention registers, duty rosters, medical records and orders authorising the detentions. Records identifying who was detained, where they were held and which officers were responsible should be available to the investigating authorities.
The objective should be to establish the facts, protect the rights of those detained and ensure that anyone responsible for misconduct is held accountable.
What Accountability Looks Like
Several questions demand clear answers.
Who was responsible for running these detention centres? Who was the man in civilian clothes whom Tom describes, and under whose authority was he acting? Why were people held in community halls rather than recognised police facilities? Were detainees given timely medical examinations? Were the allegations of beatings reported to senior officers, and what steps were taken to investigate them?
These are not minor administrative questions. They concern the use of state power and the safeguards that protect citizens against its misuse.
Delhi Police reports to the Union Home Ministry, rather than to the elected Delhi government. The Centre therefore has a direct responsibility to ensure that the allegations receive serious attention. Parliament, the courts and the National Human Rights Commission also have roles to play within their respective powers.
None should treat the absence of a formal complaint as sufficient reason to ignore credible evidence of possible custodial abuse.
Why This Should Worry Everyone
A country cannot claim democratic strength merely because it holds elections. Democracy also depends on how the state treats citizens who question authority, challenge policies or take to the streets to demand answers.
Students and young people are not troublemakers simply because they protest. Their questions are part of the democratic process, and their rights do not disappear when the police detain them.
The allegations made by these three men must be independently verified. An investigation may establish that some claims are unfounded, or it may uncover serious misconduct. Neither outcome should be predetermined.
If the allegations are false, a transparent inquiry can help clear the police of wrongdoing. If they are true, silence or procedural excuses will only deepen the damage to public trust.
The Constitution demands more than assurances that the law will be followed. It demands that the law apply to those who wield power as firmly as it applies to those detained by them.
When citizens are taken into custody, the state assumes responsibility for their safety. The least India can demand is that this responsibility be honoured, and that any allegation of its violation be investigated without delay.
According to a report in The Indian Express, at least three men detained by Delhi Police during the CJP protests allege that they were assaulted in custody. Protesters were bundled into buses and taken to makeshift detention centres. The accounts that emerged afterward raise serious questions about police conduct, custodial safeguards and the treatment of dissent in a democracy.
What the Detainees Say
Nihal Alam, 36, from Kishanganj in Bihar, says he had no involvement in the protest. He was in Delhi to visit his sister in Bawana. Believing the protests were over, he travelled by metro to Connaught Place to buy clothes.
According to Alam, police picked him up and took him to a community centre in Pandwalan Khurd. He alleges that officers beat him with sticks inside a bus fitted with iron-barred partitions. He says he told them his right arm was hurting, but they ignored him.
Medical records reportedly show a radial head fracture near his right elbow. A doctor advised further imaging to examine the bones and joint structures. Alam says he was told he would need a rod, costing around ₹20,000. He runs an eatery in his village and plans to ask his family for the money.
Arjun Unnikrishnan, 30, a law graduate and researcher, alleges that personnel inside the centre struck detainees across their bodies, kicked them and hit them in their private parts. He says the cramped conditions left people barely able to move. After his release, he went directly to a hospital because he wanted his injuries documented while the evidence was fresh.
Fidal Tom, 26, a Delhi-based lawyer, says he was detained near the Sanjay Colony police post under Maidangarhi police station. He alleges that police beat him there before holding him with other detainees and releasing him at around 2 am.
His medico-legal certificate reportedly records multiple injuries, including swelling and an abrasion on his face, along with bruising on both arms and his back. The examination found that the injuries were most likely caused by multiple instances of blunt-object trauma.
Tom’s account of what allegedly happened inside the detention facility is particularly disturbing. He says a man in civilian clothes, rather than a police uniform, was beating detainees in a room. When Tom questioned the man’s authority, he alleges, the man dragged him into a small bathroom, where around ten police personnel hit him with lathis.
According to Tom, the beating stopped only after he identified himself as an advocate and showed his Bar Association identification card. He also mentioned that he had appeared in court alongside senior advocate Kapil Sibal on October 9.
Consider what that detail implies. If Tom’s account is accurate, identifying himself as a lawyer reportedly helped stop the assault. Alam, an eatery owner from Bihar who says he was simply out shopping, had no comparable protection.
The Pattern Matters More Than Any Single Case
Three men detained at different points have described custodial beatings, with separate medico-legal records reportedly documenting injuries. Their accounts warrant a thorough and independent investigation, not dismissal as isolated complaints.
India has a long history of students and young people taking to the streets over education, jobs, examinations, fees and civil rights. Peaceful protest is a legitimate part of democratic life. A government confident in its policies should be able to hear protesters out, defend its decisions and allow the courts to resolve legal disputes.
Yet the response to dissent too often risks becoming a matter of force rather than engagement. Detention buses, mass arrests and allegations of violence can turn a public demonstration into a test of how much authority the state is willing to exercise over its citizens.
This case also raises an important question about the distinction between protesters and bystanders. Alam says he was shopping and had no part in the demonstration. If people are detained en masse without properly establishing their involvement, the result is punishment for being in the wrong place rather than accountability for specific conduct.
The use of makeshift detention centres in community halls also deserves scrutiny. Such facilities must not become spaces where ordinary safeguards are weakened or ignored. Authorities should be able to establish who was detained, on what grounds, where they were taken and whether they had timely access to legal assistance, medical care and their families.
The Official Response
Asked about the allegations, a senior police official told The Indian Express that no complaints had been received and that action would follow if a complaint was filed, in accordance with the law.
That response deserves scrutiny.
Expecting a man with a fractured arm, or someone who has just endured a night in detention, to approach a police station and file a complaint against the police is a considerable demand. People alleging custodial violence may fear retaliation or doubt whether their complaints will be investigated fairly.
Where credible allegations are accompanied by medical records, the authorities should not rely solely on whether a formal complaint has been submitted. They should take steps to establish what happened.
An independent, magistrate-led inquiry would be a reasonable starting point. The authorities should also preserve and examine relevant CCTV footage, detention registers, duty rosters, medical records and orders authorising the detentions. Records identifying who was detained, where they were held and which officers were responsible should be available to the investigating authorities.
The objective should be to establish the facts, protect the rights of those detained and ensure that anyone responsible for misconduct is held accountable.
What Accountability Looks Like
Several questions demand clear answers.
Who was responsible for running these detention centres? Who was the man in civilian clothes whom Tom describes, and under whose authority was he acting? Why were people held in community halls rather than recognised police facilities? Were detainees given timely medical examinations? Were the allegations of beatings reported to senior officers, and what steps were taken to investigate them?
These are not minor administrative questions. They concern the use of state power and the safeguards that protect citizens against its misuse.
Delhi Police reports to the Union Home Ministry, rather than to the elected Delhi government. The Centre therefore has a direct responsibility to ensure that the allegations receive serious attention. Parliament, the courts and the National Human Rights Commission also have roles to play within their respective powers.
None should treat the absence of a formal complaint as sufficient reason to ignore credible evidence of possible custodial abuse.
Why This Should Worry Everyone
A country cannot claim democratic strength merely because it holds elections. Democracy also depends on how the state treats citizens who question authority, challenge policies or take to the streets to demand answers.
Students and young people are not troublemakers simply because they protest. Their questions are part of the democratic process, and their rights do not disappear when the police detain them.
The allegations made by these three men must be independently verified. An investigation may establish that some claims are unfounded, or it may uncover serious misconduct. Neither outcome should be predetermined.
If the allegations are false, a transparent inquiry can help clear the police of wrongdoing. If they are true, silence or procedural excuses will only deepen the damage to public trust.
The Constitution demands more than assurances that the law will be followed. It demands that the law apply to those who wield power as firmly as it applies to those detained by them.
When citizens are taken into custody, the state assumes responsibility for their safety. The least India can demand is that this responsibility be honoured, and that any allegation of its violation be investigated without delay.
Leave a Comment