New Delhi: The violence that erupted during the protest by CJP supporters near Parliament House on Monday has triggered questions within the security establishment over the intelligence assessment that preceded the demonstration, the sequence of events that led to stone-pelting, and the Delhi Police’s decision to deploy plainclothes personnel during the operation.
According to sources familiar with the security arrangements, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Delhi Police had, until nearly 24 hours before the protest, assessed that the mobilisation would remain limited. The expectation, according to the sources, was that the gathering would not exceed a few hundred people and could be managed with the deployment already in place.
Police personnel deployed in the area also conveyed a similar assessment to people present at the site, saying there was little cause for concern as the protest was not expected to attract a large turnout.
That assessment, however, proved inaccurate.
As the day progressed, the number of protesters increased substantially, with security officials now attributing part of the mobilisation to the Parliament session scheduled to begin on Monday.
The unexpectedly large turnout placed additional pressure on the police deployment strongly indicating there was a failure in intelligence gathering, threat assessment, and operational planning.
Officials familiar with the matter said the episode is being viewed by some within the security establishment as an intelligence failure because available inputs did not adequately anticipate the scale of mobilisation despite the political significance of the protest and its proximity to the commencement of Parliament’s Monsoon Session.
Separately, the sequence of events preceding the violence has also come under scrutiny.
Independent Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad reached the protest site during the morning and addressed the gathering, expressing support for the protesting students. During his visit, he also had an argument with police personnel deployed in the area before leaving the venue.
According to multiple eyewitnesses who spoke to this newspaper, the stone-pelting began only after Azad had departed.
The eyewitnesses alleged that some of the individuals who initiated the stone-pelting were among those who had accompanied the MP to the protest site. They further claimed these individuals were not part of the core group of students who had been protesting in the area for the previous five to six days and appeared to be outsiders. The eyewitnesses said they were able to distinguish them because they had remained at the protest site continuously over several days and were familiar with those participating in the agitation.
This newspaper has not independently verified these claims. There is no suggestion that Azad himself was present when the stone-pelting began or that he participated in or encouraged any act of violence.
In 2017, Chandrashekhar had gained media attention after being a part of a similar protest is Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
The violence that followed led to a police lathi charge, with videos from the scene showing police personnel dispersing protesters using force. The action has since drawn criticism from opposition parties, civil society groups and sections of the legal fraternity, who have questioned whether the force employed was proportionate to the situation on the ground.
The Delhi Police’s operational strategy has also come under scrutiny over its deployment of personnel in plain clothes during the operation.
Multiple videos circulating on social media appear to show men dressed in civilian clothing participating alongside uniformed personnel during the lathi charge. Several open-source intelligence (OSINT) researchers and social media users have claimed to identify some of these individuals through publicly available Facebook and Instagram profiles. This newspaper has not independently verified those identifications or the claims regarding their identities.
However, the presence of plainclothes personnel actively participating in crowd-control measures has surprised several serving and retired police officers familiar with public order operations.
According to these officers, while plainclothes personnel are routinely deployed for surveillance, intelligence collection, identifying suspects or making targeted detentions, officers directly involved in the use of force are ordinarily expected to be identifiable as members of the police through uniforms, badges or other official insignia.
The officers said visible identification is an important safeguard for public accountability and also protects the legitimacy of police action during volatile situations. They cautioned that normalising the use of force by unidentified individuals claiming to be police personnel could create long-term risks. In such a scenario, they said, criminal elements could impersonate police officers while dressed in civilian clothing, and ordinary citizens, having become accustomed to such practices, may find it more difficult to distinguish genuine law enforcement personnel from impostors.
.
