New Delhi: The Delhi Police on Tuesday (August 18) filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court denying the use of excessive force against student protesters during the July 20 Sansad Chalo march which ultimately lead to Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation.The police told the court that the protests stopped being peaceful once parts of the crowd broke through several layers of barricades and tried to push towards parliament, and that the force used to stop them was justified, Live Law reported.The counter-affidavit was filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma. It was filed in response to petitions asking for a court-monitored investigation into alleged police excesses during the protest. The affidavit also serves as a common reply across four related petitions.Also read: Modi Ministers Hide Behind ‘No Shots Fired’ But Govt Has Previously Used Terms ‘Firing’, ‘Bullets’ For Pellet Gun UseAccording to the police, the force used was calibrated and not blanket. The affidavit underlined that roughly 5,000 officers were trying to control a crowd of more than 30,000 people spread over a 3-km stretch.Once the crowd was out of control, clashes broke out, leaving both protesters and police personnel hurt, as per the affidavit. It stated that the number of injured officers were over 240, with around 200 public or protesters also hurt.Meanwhile, Union minister Kiren Rijiju on Tuesday said, “Not a single person was harmed; not a single person suffered a broken bone. Not even one protester is in the hospital with a serious injury.”Anti-social elements allegedly got mixedThe police claimed that anti-social elements and history-sheeters got mixed into the crowd while underlying that “the allegation of excessive force cannot be sustained”.The affidavit further states that around 2,873 people present had existing criminal cases against them, ranging from murder and attempted murder to dacoity, rape and offences under the POCSO Act. These individuals, it said, will be investigated by the Special Investigation Team set up by the Delhi Police Commissioner.On the broader question of whether the force used was appropriate, the police said this is something the court-proposed committee can examine.Further, the police called the gathering itself illegal saying that no permission had been given for a march to parliament and moving towards parliament amounted to an unlawful act by an unlawful assembly.They also alleged that the petitions before the court lean on cherry-picked photographs, partial video clips, and unverified media and social media posts that haven’t been independently checked, which they say present a one-sided version of events and leave out the lawful actions taken by officers, as per the report.Nail-studded lathi claimResponding to allegations that police used a lathi fitted with nails, the affidavit said video evidence showed only one such incident and that the object was in a protester’s hands, not a police officer’s adding that it wasn’t actually a lathi but a stick with the national flag tied to it.They maintained that lathis themselves are standard, permitted equipment, and that officers used them only after protesters began attacking them without provocation, Live Law reported.On footage showing plainclothes police carrying lathis, the police said these were “spotters” and that the visuals, taken out of context, misrepresent what was a routine crowd-control tactic.Also read: Full Text | Apar Gupta on the Delhi Police’s Illegal SurveillanceThe police added that given how quickly the situation was unfolding, spotters from the Special Branch, Special Cell, Crime Branch and local police units were placed inside the crowd which the affidavit describes as neither illegal nor unusual, and a method apparently used during large public gatherings such as Independence Day and Republic Day.In a detailed report Alt News highlighted that Instagram user @ansh.visuals_ had posted a video on July 20 of youth protestors confronting police officers over the use of batons with nails.The report underlined that one of the protesters took the baton in his hand and showed it to camera. While the police officials seemingly remained unperturbed, the protester could be heard asking questions like “How did you not see? We saw it from afar, and you didn’t see?” while referring to the batons.Notably, besides tear gas and lathis, the Delhi Police also resorted to pellet guns. Three individuals reported serious injuries – 25-year-old Irshad Sheikh, 19-year-old Delhi University student Sahil Lochab and a 28-year-old journalist who works with Outlook magazine.Although Delhi Police repeatedly denied using pellet guns, the CRPF remained silent on the issue. A report by The Wire’s Vipul Kumar confirmed their usage against unarmed protesters on July 20. A PIL has also been filed by pellet victims post the July 20 protests.In another report by The Wire, Sravasti Dasgupta analysed if the government was simply hiding behind semantics – using “goli” or shots as a stand-in for live ammunition even though the terms have previously been used to describe firing by pellet guns. Earlier responses by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in parliament reportedly show that the government has not contradicted the use of the term ‘firing’ while referring to pellet gun use.Facial recognition softwareThe affidavit said the deployment of facial recognition technology at the protest site is a proportionate policing tool rather than a means of mass surveillance.The software, the police said, doesn’t automatically log every person present, nor is it used to gather personal data on peaceful protesters who have no prior criminal history, according to the Live Law report.Further, they underlined that no action is taken purely on the basis of a facial recognition match and a field verification is always carried out to confirm whether the identified person was actually present.Also read: Facial Recognition Technology Has Come to India But a Law to Regulate It Has NotThe system, according to the affidavit, only flags individuals with past records in serious offences, not minor ones like traffic violations.However, speaking to The Wire in an interview Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)’s Apar Gupta underlined, “There’s no clear legal authority for facial recognition of any of this kind. The closest thing which comes to it is the Criminal Procedure Identification Act, but the Criminal Procedure Identification Act will apply to active criminal investigations. And the police did not have cause to actively surveil the protesters, given that prior to at least the 20th, there was no act of violence.”He added, “There was no cause for any kind of criminal investigation to be there. So, even if the Criminal Procedure Identification Act is cited, which is pending constitutional challenge, again something in which IFF is providing pro bono legal assistance to two petitioners who are from Jamia. They are students who are protesting. They were profiled.”