We won’t
look away.

Every factual assertion above is attributed to a named, published source and is reproduced as that source’s finding, not as an independent allegation by the author. The position stated by the Delhi Police is reproduced alongside it, in full.

Under the First Exception to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code), an imputation of truth made for the public good is not defamation. No individual officer is named, identified, or depicted anywhere on this page.

This footage circulated publicly during and after the events of 20 to 23 July 2026. It is reproduced here as a record of a matter of public concern, in reliance on the fair dealing provision for reporting current events at Section 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Each clip links to the original public posting from which it was taken, so that its source can be checked independently. Local copies are retained because material of this kind is frequently removed. No person in this footage is named or identified. If you filmed any of this material and wish it to be credited differently or removed, write to [email protected] and it will be actioned promptly.

These are quotations from witness testimony gathered and published by Human Rights Watch. They are reproduced verbatim and attributed to their source. Reporting the recorded words of an identified publisher is protected expression under Article 19(1)(a), and is not an imputation made by the author.

The remarks quoted above were reported verbatim by LiveLaw and independently corroborated by other outlets. They are reproduced exactly as reported.

Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that fair criticism of a judicial act is not contempt of court. This section comments on a judicial act, being the refusal of an urgent listing, strictly on the basis of published reporting. It imputes no motive to any judge, alleges no impropriety or corruption, and does not question the authority, jurisdiction, or integrity of the Court.

This material is published as reportage on a matter of public concern, and corresponds to conduct independently documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. It is presented without commentary as to the identity of any officer, and no individual is named.

No footage identifying any victim of a sexual offence is published on this page. Publication of such material is prohibited by Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code), and no exception is claimed or sought.

Published by a citizen of India under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The subject matter concerns Article 19(1)(b), the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, and Article 21, the right to life and dignity. The suspension of mobile internet referred to above is itself governed by the standards laid down in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), which require such orders to be published, proportionate, and open to review.

The right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute. It is subject to the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2). Every ground is set out below, and none of them is attracted:

• Public order. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) the Supreme Court held that the link between expression and public disorder must be direct and proximate, like a spark in a powder keg, and not remote or conjectural. This page reports and comments. It calls for no assembly, no march, and no confrontation.
• Incitement to an offence. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) the Court held that discussion and advocacy, however unpopular, are protected, and that only incitement may be restricted. Nothing here urges any unlawful act.
• Defamation. Every factual claim is attributed to a named published source. No individual is named or identified. Truth published for the public good is protected by the First Exception to Section 356, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• Contempt of court. Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 protects fair criticism of a judicial act. Judicial remarks are quoted exactly as reported by LiveLaw, and are commented upon without imputing motive.
• Sovereignty and integrity of India, and security of the State. In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) the Court held that strong criticism of the government is not sedition absent incitement to violence or public disorder. Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 requires incitement to secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activity. Criticism of the conduct of a police force, and of a listing decision, is none of these.
• Decency or morality. The page contains no obscene material.
• Friendly relations with foreign States. Not engaged. The sources cited include international organisations, which is reporting, not foreign involvement.

This page is published in the public interest. Every factual statement on it is attributed to a named source. Every video links to the original public posting it was taken from, and local copies are kept here because material of this kind is routinely deleted.

Nothing on this page will be taken down because someone finds it inconvenient. If you can show, with evidence, that a specific statement is factually wrong, it will be corrected and the correction will be recorded in public. That is not a concession. Accuracy is the entire ground this page stands on, and an objection without evidence is not a correction.

The illustrated banner used to link here is an illustration, and is not presented as a photograph of any real person or incident. Every image and video on this page is documentary, and every clip is credited to its original source.

Corrections, with evidence, to [email protected].

Reporting current as of 23 July 2026.