27 FIRs in 7 Days: Legal Crackdown Over Protests Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar
Delhi Police registers 27 FIRs under BNS provisions following a week of intense protests targeting Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
In a massive legal crackdown following a week of intense demonstrations, law enforcement agencies have registered a total of 27 First Information Reports (FIRs) related to protests targeting Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The seven-day period of unrest saw heavy police activity, including the erection of barricades and the sealing of major thoroughfares around Jantar Mantar and Parliament Street to maintain order.
Strategic Use of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
The Delhi Police utilized the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to address the demonstrations, focusing on a multi-layered legal strategy. A primary tool in this crackdown was Section 3(5) of the BNS, which deals with joint criminal liability. This provision was applied in 22 out of the 27 FIRs, allowing authorities to hold entire groups equally accountable for offences committed by multiple people acting with a common intention.
By invoking joint liability, the police treated organized groups of demonstrators as collective entities, rather than attempting to isolate and book individuals one by one. This approach established that individual actions were part of a broader, organized effort to challenge authority.
Key Legal Provisions Invoked
The police relied on several specific sections of the BNS and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to manage the protests and the resulting public disorder:
- Section 223(a) of the BNS: Cited in 18 FIRs, this section pertains to disobedience to orders promulgated by a public servant. This was utilized because prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in effect in high-security zones, making unauthorized assembly illegal.
- Section 221 of the BNS: Applied in 17 FIRs, this section covers the obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of their official duties, specifically targeting those who blocked access roads or hindered security protocols.
- Section 132 of the BNS: Used in 17 FIRs, this more serious charge was added in instances where confrontations turned physical, covering the assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from performing their duties.
- PDPP/DPDP Act: Section 3 of this Act, regarding the prevention of damage to public property and defacement, was invoked in 9 FIRs.
Escalation and Specific Charges
As the protests progressed, the severity of the charges increased depending on the nature of the incidents reported by officers on the ground. Beyond the primary charges, authorities invoked several other stringent provisions of the BNS to address specific acts of violence and misconduct.
These included charges for voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servants (Section 121/121(1)), wrongful restraint (Section 126(2)), and wrongful confinement (Section 127(2)). In more extreme cases, police applied provisions related to assault against women (Sections 74/75) and the use of dangerous weapons or means to cause hurt (Section 118(1)).
The enforcement of these laws occurred amidst strict security measures, as police worked to prevent protesters from bypassing checkpoints and sit-ins that threatened to block vital city thoroughfares.