NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Tuesday observed that the right to protest does not include the right to damage the “seat of sovereignty” and said the image of a police officer cannot be “tarnished” merely over allegations of “overuse of power” during the July 20 march to Parliament against the NEET paper leak.Justice Girish Kathpalia made the remarks while dismissing a petition that sought the removal of Delhi Police Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba from an inquiry after a video surfaced showing him allegedly slapping a woman during the ‘Chalo Sansad’ march organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The incident had led to administrative action against the officer.Advocate M Sufian Siddiqui, appearing for the petitioner, argued that her confidence in the fairness of the inquiry into her alleged illegal detention in 2025 had been affected by Lamba’s conduct in the video clip. He submitted that the inquiry should therefore be transferred to an independent officer.However, Justice Kathpalia said that the police officer also has a right to a fair process and that an incident shown in a video does not automatically establish bias in every matter.“Just because he is caught on some video clip slapping a lady, we cannot tarnish him in black. Are we aware of the ground realities? How the crowd would have entered the Parliament and firing would have started. So many people would have died,” the court remarked.“Fundamental right to protest is there, but it does not extend to damage the seat of sovereignty. You were approaching sovereignty. In such a situation, how he has tackled the crowd, even if it is a case of overuse of power, that can’t be (used) to tarnish him like this,” it added.Even as Siddiqui maintained that the petitioner was not tarnishing the police officer’s image, the court asked, “If I transfer the inquiry on this ground that in some other incident he is seen slapping somebody, is it not tarnishing? I am holding him guilty without hearing.”Counsel appearing for the authorities told the court that no issue remained in the petition as the inquiry had already been completed after recording the petitioner’s statement, and the matter had been forwarded to the competent authority for a final decision.The petition was filed by 68-year-old Zarnigar Fatima, who alleged that she was illegally detained at Jafrabad police station during the intervening night of March 24 and 25, 2025. Lamba had been appointed as the inquiry officer in a judicially directed inquiry into her allegations of police excesses.The plea stated that the petitioner, an elderly woman alleging police misconduct, could not be expected to disregard the later developments involving Lamba, as they affected her confidence in the authority conducting the inquiry.“During the pendency of the inquiry, Respondent No 2/Shri Sandeep Lamba-Addl DCP was shown in widely circulated video footage, extensively reported in the media, allegedly slapping a woman in broad daylight while in uniform, whereafter consequential administrative action was admittedly taken against him. The issue is whether, after such supervening developments, the petitioner can reasonably be expected to continue participating in the inquiry with the same confidence in the inquiry officer. The petitioner’s respectful answer is in the negative,” stated the petition.The plea argued that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and that principles of fairness, transparency, and institutional integrity required the inquiry to be taken away from Lamba and assigned to an independent officer.
