With due respect, your honour, due process is not a waste of anyone’s time

This is a time when mostly young protesters are still thronging Jantar Mantar in the national capital, and when, in the aftermath of the police crackdown on July 20, they are not assuaged by the government’s assurances. At this time, the message from the highest court of the land should be: Its doors are open to any process that protects the rights of the vulnerable, fosters accountability and expands the ground for negotiations. With due respect, however, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s response to a lawyer who sought the Court’s intervention against police excess, seemed to highlight a gulf between citizen and institution, instead of offering a healing touch: “Don’t waste our time and your time,” he said. And, “We are not interested in videos. We don’t have time to watch.” These may be only oral observations. It is also true that the CJI cannot be expected to wade through countless Instagram reels and in this polarised climate, even videos whose authenticity is in doubt. But in the social media age, words travel far, often away from their contexts. They can take on a life of their own — it was the CJI’s choice of words, earlier, that provided the spark for the satirical online platform, Cockroach Janta Party, the protests’ centrepiece.

The question of police excesses against protesting students will need to be addressed. Reports from the Delhi street, including in this newspaper, have pointed to the use of disproportionate force, including pellet guns, apart from lathi charges and tear gas shells. They have highlighted, too, the short-circuiting, if not outright flouting, of established restraints and protocols. Delhi Police Standing Order 309 and Standing Order 152 lay down the specific guidelines that police must follow to disperse protesters — the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in the Ramlila Maidan case underlined these. An inquiry must ask if the police went through the required paces. Given the demographics and nature of the protesters, largely students, did the police observe the principle, as laid down by the Court, of “least invasiveness”? Did it use water cannons before resorting to more injurious methods? Did it fire the tear gas away from the crowd, rather than directly into it?

A small section of the protesters, too, have resorted to violence and vandalism. Physically assaulting journalists not to their liking to pelting stones, these need to be strongly condemned. A fair and independent probe — the Delhi High Court has done well to agree to hear two PILs on the issue — must set those aberrations in the larger context. In a clash between unequals, it must ensure that the powerful state does not weaponise the rulebook to subdue the powerless citizen. That’s why, with due respect to the Court, this needs to be underlined: Due process is not a waste of time.

Overall Analysis

The editorial is a firm yet respectful criticism of the Chief Justice of India’s remarks on petitions seeking judicial intervention against alleged police excesses during student protests. It argues that in a democracy, courts should remain accessible to citizens, especially when allegations involve violations of fundamental rights and excessive use of state power.

The editorial begins by setting the context of continuing student protests and public dissatisfaction with the government’s response. It stresses that, during such moments of constitutional uncertainty, citizens expect the judiciary to reassure them that justice remains accessible. The author expresses disappointment over the Chief Justice’s oral observations, suggesting that phrases like “Don’t waste our time” could discourage vulnerable citizens from seeking legal remedies. While acknowledging the practical difficulty of examining every video submitted before the Court, the editorial argues that words spoken by constitutional authorities carry immense symbolic value and can influence public confidence in institutions.

The second part shifts from emotion to legal reasoning. The author presents reports of alleged police excesses—including the use of pellet guns, tear gas, and lathi charges—and emphasizes that these actions must be examined against existing legal safeguards. By referring to Delhi Police Standing Orders and Supreme Court precedents, the editorial argues that any use of force against protesters must satisfy the principles of necessity, proportionality, and “least invasiveness.” This legal grounding strengthens the editorial’s credibility and moves the discussion beyond political rhetoric.

The editorial also maintains balance by condemning acts of violence committed by a section of the protesters, including attacks on journalists and vandalism. However, it makes a clear distinction between individual acts of violence and the responsibility of the state. The central argument is that while unlawful actions by protesters deserve punishment, the state’s response must always remain lawful, proportionate, and subject to judicial scrutiny. The editorial concludes by reaffirming that due process is not a procedural burden but the foundation of constitutional democracy, especially when there is an imbalance of power between the state and ordinary citizens.

Overall, the language is measured, persuasive, and constitutionally grounded. Rather than attacking institutions, the editorial appeals to them to uphold the values of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Assuaged – Reduced or eased feelings of worry, anger, or pain.
2. Disproportionate – Excessive or not justified in relation to the situation.
3. Flouting – Openly disregarding or disobeying rules or laws.
4. Invasiveness – The degree to which an action intrudes upon or harms someone.
5. Aberrations – Actions or events that deviate from what is normal or acceptable.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that judicial accessibility and due process are indispensable pillars of democracy. It emphasizes that allegations of police excesses deserve independent investigation and that constitutional institutions must inspire confidence rather than discourage citizens from seeking justice. While condemning violence by some protesters, it insists that the state’s response must always remain within the bounds of law.

Tone: Respectful, constitutional, analytical, and persuasive.