After a Newslaundry investigation, Delhi Police have confirmed that the stone-laden truck seen near Jantar Mantar on the morning of the July 20 march was in their custody – a vehicle they had seized after a road accident and then moved. But in the court, the lawyer representing the police had invoked the same truck while mentioning violence by protesters.

The truck first came into the public domain on July 20, hours before the Cockroach Janta Party was to march to Parliament. Their X handle posted a video on social media, showing a truck loaded with stones parked near Jantar Mantar, the designated protest site in central Delhi.

Protesters had alleged the vehicle had been planted – either to frame them or to trigger violence they could then be blamed for. Abhijeet Dipke, the campaign’s founder, asked at the time whether the police were “orchestrating stone-pelting on the peaceful CJP protesters”.

The march ended in violence in which many were injured, including policemen. Several petitions alleging police excesses were subsequently filed before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. 

In the Delhi High Court: ‘Cannot be believed prima facie’

On July 22, a division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing such petitions. 

Opposing the petitions, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for both the Delhi Police and the Central government, argued that they rested on “suppression of facts” and on social media videos whose authenticity could not readily be accepted. He said the demonstrations had turned violent, and that there was video of police personnel being injured and police vehicles being damaged.

He turned to the truck. “There are videos which show that the crowd was indulging in stone-pelting. As admitted by the petitioners themselves, there was a truck loaded with stones and bricks at the place of the incident. To get away from the fact that these stones were accumulated by them, they are now saying they were brought by the police, which cannot be believed prima facie. Some persons in the mob might not have done it, but there are other elements in the mob which might have resorted to such acts. My lords are aware that if you are part of a mob or an unlawful assembly, anything and everything done by that unlawful assembly is attributed to you. That is a settled principle,” he submitted.

The court had directed the Delhi Police and the Union of India to file counter affidavits within four weeks and listed the matter for September 11. 

That claim about the truck before the high court was made nearly a week before Delhi Police publicly confirmed that the truck had been in their custody and had been moved by them.

CJI: ‘Who is owning and disowning?’

The truck was also mentioned before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India.

This Tuesday, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that a prima facie case had been made out for an independent investigation into allegations of police excesses against students and issued directions against coercive action. The bench issued notices to the Delhi government and to Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Assam, Maharashtra and West Bengal on a batch of petitions on police excesses against students.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Delhi Police and the central government.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Junaid Malik, drew the court’s attention to the truck. 

CJI Surya Kant then said, “Who is owning and disowning (the truck)? Because they (the government counsel) are also saying the truck was brought by…” 

Advocate Vrinda Grover intervened to question the police version, asking how such a vehicle could have crossed multiple police barricades if the area was under heavy security. 

The Supreme Court will hear the matter on August 3, when the bench is likely to constitute a committee or a special investigation team to probe the allegations.

On Wednesday, after the police denial of the Newslaundry report, Vrinda Grover raised more questions, pointing to the government’s own submissions.

“Delhi Police who is briefing the senior law officers of the Union of India?” the Supreme Court advocate wrote on X.

“It was the senior most lawyers of the Govt. who alluded to the presence of the truck at the protest. Such submissions were made both before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court,” she wrote.

CJP spokesperson: ‘We were told it was an MCD truck’

The Newslaundry investigation found that the truck had been in police custody all along. The vehicle had been seized four days before the march, on July 16, by the Parliament Street Police Station, after a crash that injured seven people.

After the report was published, the police said the truck had indeed been seized on July 16 after it was involved in an accident with a van, and that an FIR had been registered. It was initially parked near Parliament Street Police Station for safe custody because of space constraints, they said. It was subsequently emptied and relocated, the police added, as part of law and order arrangements.

They rejected claims that the truck was deliberately deployed near Jantar Mantar or outside the office of any political party as “completely baseless”. “Any claim linking the vehicle to a conspiracy against protesters is completely baseless.”

CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka alleged, “During the early hours of July 20, when we informed the police about the truck, we were laughed around and told that it’s an MCD truck carrying debris.”

Abhijeet Dipke said, “On the morning of the 20th, the police told us it was an NDMC truck.”

In times of misinformation, you need news you can trust. We’ve got you covered. Subscribe to Newslaundry and power our work.