A political dispute over Delhi’s recent protests has taken a more serious turn after Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Delhi president Saurabh Bharadwaj filed a formal complaint alleging that police personnel and paramilitary staff subjected him to three dangerous physical assaults.
Bharadwaj has asked Delhi Police to register a First Information Report (FIR) and called for an independent investigation into incidents he says occurred on September 29, October 4 and October 12. He has alleged that the actions went beyond routine crowd control and amounted to a coordinated attempt to cause him serious injury or death.
The complaint has also referred to alleged assaults involving AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh and Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP John Brittas. Bharadwaj has warned that he will approach the courts if an FIR is not registered.
The allegations have emerged amid a wider confrontation over demonstrations demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police have detained opposition leaders and protesters during the demonstrations, while reports of alleged mistreatment in custody have added to concerns about the handling of dissent in the national capital.
The complaint now puts the spotlight on a crucial question: how should allegations of excessive force by law-enforcement personnel be investigated when the officers themselves are accused of wrongdoing?
Bharadwaj Seeks Action Over Three Alleged Assaults
In his complaint, dated October 13, Bharadwaj described three incidents in which he claims police personnel used excessive force against him during public gatherings.
He said the incidents shared a disturbing pattern involving alleged pressure on the neck, throat and spine, as well as attempts to prevent journalists and bystanders from recording what was happening.
Bharadwaj has asked authorities to examine video evidence and preserve police recordings, CCTV footage and footage from vehicles used to transport detainees.
His demand is not limited to a departmental inquiry. He has sought an independent investigation, arguing that an external agency would be better placed to examine allegations against police and security personnel.
The allegations are serious, but they have not yet been established through an independent investigation or a judicial finding. The requested inquiry would be an important step in determining what happened during each confrontation.
What Happened Near Janpath on October 12?
The most recent incident described in the complaint allegedly occurred on October 12 near Janpath, where Bharadwaj was participating in a protest alongside senior AAP leaders, including Sanjay Singh.
The demonstration was part of the broader campaign demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
According to Bharadwaj’s account, police and paramilitary personnel intercepted the protesters as they attempted to proceed. He alleged that officers pulled him by his clothing and that one policeman grabbed his collar from behind with such force that he struggled to breathe.
Bharadwaj claimed that he repeatedly shouted that he was being choked but was not immediately released. He said an eyewitness, Abhishek Kumar, intervened and raised an alarm, prompting others nearby to react.
According to the complaint, the grip was released after the intervention.
These details form part of Bharadwaj’s version of events and require independent verification. Video recordings, witness statements and any available police documentation could help establish the sequence of events.
India Gate Incident Raises Questions About Use of Force
The second alleged assault took place on October 4 during a protest march at India Gate Circle, according to the complaint.
Bharadwaj claimed that police personnel lifted his legs into the air in a manner that could have left him hanging upside down, potentially exposing him to serious neck or spinal injuries.
He also alleged that officers surrounded him to obstruct media cameras and prevent bystanders from recording the incident.
Bharadwaj said he had attached video footage to his complaint.
If independently verified, the recordings could help clarify whether the force used was necessary to restrain a protester or went beyond what was reasonably required. They could also help establish whether journalists were deliberately prevented from documenting the confrontation.
For now, the allegations should be assessed against the available evidence rather than treated as a final account of what occurred.
September 29 Incident: Bharadwaj Says He Lost Consciousness
The earliest incident cited in the complaint allegedly occurred on September 29 during a protest in the Vikaspuri area, including outside the local police station.
Bharadwaj claimed that officers choked him during a scuffle and detention, causing him to lose consciousness. He said women party workers intervened to help him.
He also stated that he had previously submitted a complaint about this incident but that no FIR had been registered.
The allegation is particularly significant because Bharadwaj says he had already approached the authorities before submitting the consolidated complaint.
Whether the earlier complaint was received, what action was taken and whether any medical or video evidence exists are questions that an investigation could help resolve.
A transparent account of the incident would also help determine whether it was an isolated confrontation or part of a broader pattern, as Bharadwaj alleges.
Complaint Also Cites John Brittas and Sanjay Singh
Bharadwaj has extended his complaint beyond his own experiences, referring to alleged mistreatment of two other public representatives.
He cited the October 11 incident involving CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, claiming that police personnel dragged Brittas into a vehicle near Connaught Place while he was speaking to journalists.
Bharadwaj further alleged that Brittas was pinned down and choked or suffocated before being left on the roadside in distress. According to the complaint, Brittas was subsequently taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for a medical examination and chest X-ray.
The AAP leader also referred to alleged attempts to choke Sanjay Singh during the October 12 confrontation.
These accounts broaden the scope of the complaint by raising questions about how police handle elected representatives during demonstrations. However, the claims involving each individual need to be examined separately, using witness testimony, medical records and relevant footage.
Why Bharadwaj Wants an Independent Investigation
Bharadwaj has argued that an internal inquiry would not be sufficient because his complaint concerns alleged criminal conduct by police and security personnel.
He has requested an FIR under relevant legal provisions concerning criminal conspiracy, assault, grievous hurt and attempted murder.
He has also called for the preservation of official police videos, CCTV footage from the protest locations and recordings from police transport vehicles used on the dates in question.
Such material could be particularly important because video evidence can establish timelines, identify individuals and help investigators compare witness accounts with recorded events.
An independent investigation would also need to examine evidence that supports the police account, if one is provided, rather than relying exclusively on the complainant’s version.
The registration of an FIR, if ordered or accepted, would begin a formal criminal investigation. It would not by itself establish the guilt of any officer.
The Larger Context: Protests Over the Election Commission
The complaint comes amid continuing demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission’s handling of electoral-roll revisions.
The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and other groups have raised allegations of irregularities and demanded greater accountability. The Election Commission has rejected allegations of deliberate manipulation, and claims of wrongdoing remain disputed.
During the protests, Delhi Police detained opposition leaders and other demonstrators as authorities attempted to prevent marches towards restricted areas.
The confrontation has since expanded into debates about protest permissions, public-order restrictions, internet services and the treatment of journalists and detainees.
Bharadwaj’s complaint adds a new dimension to those disputes. It shifts attention from whether authorities were entitled to control demonstrations to whether the methods allegedly used during that process were lawful and proportionate.
Both questions matter. Public authorities have responsibilities to maintain order, but those responsibilities do not remove the need to investigate credible allegations of misconduct.
Supreme Court Proceedings Add to the Scrutiny
The complaint has also emerged amid Supreme Court proceedings concerning restrictions imposed during the protest period.
Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan has tendered an unconditional apology in connection with a contempt matter relating to the implementation of restrictions on certain services in Delhi. He maintained that the measures were intended to prevent disturbances and protect public order.
The dispute includes a temporary suspension of cellular internet services within a defined area around Raisina Hill from October 9 to October 10.
The internet restrictions and Bharadwaj’s assault allegations are separate matters. Nevertheless, both have contributed to wider scrutiny of how the authorities responded to the demonstrations.
The legal proceedings concerning the restrictions will address their own questions of compliance and proportionality. Bharadwaj’s complaint, meanwhile, calls for an examination of alleged physical force and possible criminal conduct.
What Happens Next?
The immediate issue is whether authorities will register an FIR and initiate the investigation Bharadwaj has requested.
The next steps should include preserving relevant recordings, identifying witnesses, examining any medical documentation and obtaining the accounts of the officers involved.
The Delhi Police response will also be important. An official account of the confrontations, together with any evidence supporting the officers’ actions, would help establish a fuller picture.
If no FIR is registered, Bharadwaj has said he will approach the courts. Judicial scrutiny could then determine what legal remedies are available and whether further action is warranted.
The outcome will matter not only to the individuals named in the complaint but also to public confidence in the mechanisms used to investigate allegations against law-enforcement agencies.
Conclusion
Saurabh Bharadwaj’s complaint has turned allegations of excessive police force during Delhi’s protests into a formal demand for criminal investigation.
His account describes three alleged assaults over several weeks and cites incidents involving Sanjay Singh and John Brittas. He is seeking an FIR, the preservation of video evidence and an investigation independent of the personnel accused of wrongdoing.
The allegations remain unproven, and the police account must also be considered. But the seriousness of the claims makes a clear, evidence-based response essential.
In a democracy, maintaining public order and protecting citizens from unlawful force are not opposing goals. Both depend on the rule of law.
The most important next step is therefore not another round of political accusations, but a transparent process that establishes what happened, identifies responsibility where evidence supports it, and ensures that any proven misconduct is addressed through the law.