Can't tarnish him: Court on senior cop who slapped woman protester at Jantar Mantar
A 68-year-old woman approached the Delhi High Court seeking the transfer of a police inquiry, alleging that she was forcibly taken from her home during Ramadan and detained overnight. She questioned Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba's impartiality, citing a viral video that showed him slapping a woman protester during the CJP's Jantar Mantar demonstration.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a petition seeking withdrawal of a 2025 case alleging police excesses under Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba, who was removed from Jantar Mantar duty after a viral video purportedly showed him slapping a woman protester during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Sansad Chalo’ march.
Hearing the matter, Justice Girish Kathpalia wondered whether the officer’s image could be damaged only on the basis of the video, and said people were often unaware of the ground situation during large protests.
“Just because he was caught in some video allegedly slapping a lady, we cannot tarnish him. Are we aware of the ground realities? How would the crowd have entered the parliament and firing would have started and so many would have died?” the judge asked, according to Bar and Bench.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a 68-year-old woman who alleged that she was forcibly taken out of her house during Ramadan last year and was illegally detained overnight by the police. She said she had lost faith in Lamba’s ability to conduct a fair inquiry into the complaint lodged by her.
According to her plea, the inquiry had followed an earlier direction of the High Court for an independent probe and for preservation of CCTV footage from the police station where she was detained. She also alleged that Lamba had earlier issued a communication saying the inquiry was being closed without first recording her statement.
The petitioner then approached the court challenging that communication. The court subsequently directed Lamba to record her statement before closing the inquiry, after which her statement was recorded on July 13.
The woman later referred to reports of Lamba slapping a woman protester during the Jantar Mantar protests and argued that this had created serious doubts about his impartiality. On that basis, she sought transfer of the inquiry arising from her complaint to another senior officer.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that Lamba was seen “violating a woman” by slapping her during the Jantar Mantar protests. “He is seen slapping a woman in broad daylight while in uniform, and subsequently, administrative action was taken,” the counsel added.
Appearing for the senior citizen, advocate M Sufian Siddiqui told the court that the “supervening circumstances”, when considered alongside the officer’s past conduct, had created a “grave apprehension of bias” in the petitioner’s mind.
“My respectful submission is that, in light of the supervening circumstances, wherein the inquiry officer himself is found guilty of violating a woman’s rights, please appreciate how and in what manner the inquiry was closed without recording the statement of the petitioner, who was the victim,” Siddiqui said.
The court, however, said the recent allegations could not lead to a presumption that Lamba would be biased in every matter assigned to him.
“The fundamental right to protest is there, but it does not extend to damaging the seat of sovereignty. How he has tackled the crowd - even if it was a case of overuse of power - he cannot be tarnished like this. He is also entitled to a fair trial and enquiry. Does that mean in every case he will be biased? You have to be very fair. Stop discrediting the institution,” the court said, as per Bar and Bench.
The Delhi Police then informed the court that the inquiry into the petitioner’s case had already been completed, that her statement had been recorded, and that Lamba had forwarded the inquiry report to the competent authority for a final decision, which would be communicated to her.
Taking note of the submission, the court said nothing remained for consideration and dismissed the plea. “Considering the statement of the ASC, the petition is held infructuous and dismissed,” it said.
Advocates Sufian Siddiqui, Rakesh Bhugra, Niyazuddin and Mohammad Mazhar Ahmed of Global Law Chambers appeared for the petitioner.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a petition seeking withdrawal of a 2025 case alleging police excesses under Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba, who was removed from Jantar Mantar duty after a viral video purportedly showed him slapping a woman protester during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Sansad Chalo’ march.
Hearing the matter, Justice Girish Kathpalia wondered whether the officer’s image could be damaged only on the basis of the video, and said people were often unaware of the ground situation during large protests.
“Just because he was caught in some video allegedly slapping a lady, we cannot tarnish him. Are we aware of the ground realities? How would the crowd have entered the parliament and firing would have started and so many would have died?” the judge asked, according to Bar and Bench.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a 68-year-old woman who alleged that she was forcibly taken out of her house during Ramadan last year and was illegally detained overnight by the police. She said she had lost faith in Lamba’s ability to conduct a fair inquiry into the complaint lodged by her.
According to her plea, the inquiry had followed an earlier direction of the High Court for an independent probe and for preservation of CCTV footage from the police station where she was detained. She also alleged that Lamba had earlier issued a communication saying the inquiry was being closed without first recording her statement.
The petitioner then approached the court challenging that communication. The court subsequently directed Lamba to record her statement before closing the inquiry, after which her statement was recorded on July 13.
The woman later referred to reports of Lamba slapping a woman protester during the Jantar Mantar protests and argued that this had created serious doubts about his impartiality. On that basis, she sought transfer of the inquiry arising from her complaint to another senior officer.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that Lamba was seen “violating a woman” by slapping her during the Jantar Mantar protests. “He is seen slapping a woman in broad daylight while in uniform, and subsequently, administrative action was taken,” the counsel added.
Appearing for the senior citizen, advocate M Sufian Siddiqui told the court that the “supervening circumstances”, when considered alongside the officer’s past conduct, had created a “grave apprehension of bias” in the petitioner’s mind.
“My respectful submission is that, in light of the supervening circumstances, wherein the inquiry officer himself is found guilty of violating a woman’s rights, please appreciate how and in what manner the inquiry was closed without recording the statement of the petitioner, who was the victim,” Siddiqui said.
The court, however, said the recent allegations could not lead to a presumption that Lamba would be biased in every matter assigned to him.
“The fundamental right to protest is there, but it does not extend to damaging the seat of sovereignty. How he has tackled the crowd - even if it was a case of overuse of power - he cannot be tarnished like this. He is also entitled to a fair trial and enquiry. Does that mean in every case he will be biased? You have to be very fair. Stop discrediting the institution,” the court said, as per Bar and Bench.
The Delhi Police then informed the court that the inquiry into the petitioner’s case had already been completed, that her statement had been recorded, and that Lamba had forwarded the inquiry report to the competent authority for a final decision, which would be communicated to her.
Taking note of the submission, the court said nothing remained for consideration and dismissed the plea. “Considering the statement of the ASC, the petition is held infructuous and dismissed,” it said.
Advocates Sufian Siddiqui, Rakesh Bhugra, Niyazuddin and Mohammad Mazhar Ahmed of Global Law Chambers appeared for the petitioner.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a petition seeking withdrawal of a 2025 case alleging police excesses under Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba, who was removed from Jantar Mantar duty after a viral video purportedly showed him slapping a woman protester during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Sansad Chalo’ march.
Hearing the matter, Justice Girish Kathpalia wondered whether the officer’s image could be damaged only on the basis of the video, and said people were often unaware of the ground situation during large protests.
“Just because he was caught in some video allegedly slapping a lady, we cannot tarnish him. Are we aware of the ground realities? How would the crowd have entered the parliament and firing would have started and so many would have died?” the judge asked, according to Bar and Bench.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a 68-year-old woman who alleged that she was forcibly taken out of her house during Ramadan last year and was illegally detained overnight by the police. She said she had lost faith in Lamba’s ability to conduct a fair inquiry into the complaint lodged by her.
According to her plea, the inquiry had followed an earlier direction of the High Court for an independent probe and for preservation of CCTV footage from the police station where she was detained. She also alleged that Lamba had earlier issued a communication saying the inquiry was being closed without first recording her statement.
The petitioner then approached the court challenging that communication. The court subsequently directed Lamba to record her statement before closing the inquiry, after which her statement was recorded on July 13.
The woman later referred to reports of Lamba slapping a woman protester during the Jantar Mantar protests and argued that this had created serious doubts about his impartiality. On that basis, she sought transfer of the inquiry arising from her complaint to another senior officer.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that Lamba was seen “violating a woman” by slapping her during the Jantar Mantar protests. “He is seen slapping a woman in broad daylight while in uniform, and subsequently, administrative action was taken,” the counsel added.
Appearing for the senior citizen, advocate M Sufian Siddiqui told the court that the “supervening circumstances”, when considered alongside the officer’s past conduct, had created a “grave apprehension of bias” in the petitioner’s mind.
“My respectful submission is that, in light of the supervening circumstances, wherein the inquiry officer himself is found guilty of violating a woman’s rights, please appreciate how and in what manner the inquiry was closed without recording the statement of the petitioner, who was the victim,” Siddiqui said.
The court, however, said the recent allegations could not lead to a presumption that Lamba would be biased in every matter assigned to him.
“The fundamental right to protest is there, but it does not extend to damaging the seat of sovereignty. How he has tackled the crowd - even if it was a case of overuse of power - he cannot be tarnished like this. He is also entitled to a fair trial and enquiry. Does that mean in every case he will be biased? You have to be very fair. Stop discrediting the institution,” the court said, as per Bar and Bench.
The Delhi Police then informed the court that the inquiry into the petitioner’s case had already been completed, that her statement had been recorded, and that Lamba had forwarded the inquiry report to the competent authority for a final decision, which would be communicated to her.
Taking note of the submission, the court said nothing remained for consideration and dismissed the plea. “Considering the statement of the ASC, the petition is held infructuous and dismissed,” it said.
Advocates Sufian Siddiqui, Rakesh Bhugra, Niyazuddin and Mohammad Mazhar Ahmed of Global Law Chambers appeared for the petitioner.
