CW-2012-0005Central Delhi, DelhiJudgment 23 February 2012

In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident dated 4/5.06.2011 v. Home Secretary, Union of India and Others

The Supreme Court decided the suo motu case on the midnight 4/5 June 2011 police crackdown on Baba Ramdev sleeping supporters at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi, in which lathis, tear-gas shells and brick-batting were used to disperse the gathering, killing a Delhi woman and injuring many. The Court held the police action showed negligence and abuse of power with unjustifiable and brutal acts, while also finding contributory negligence by the organisers Trust. The Court directed disciplinary action against all erring police personnel irrespective of rank, registration of criminal cases, and ad hoc compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a Delhi woman kin, Rs 50,000 for grievous injuries and Rs 25,000 for simple injuries, with 25% of death/grievous awards payable by the Trust. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 23 February 2012 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 122 of 2011, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: B. S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the accused police personnel, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).

Register number
DL 06 CW 0019
Case reference
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 122 of 2011 / (2012) 5 SCC 1; [2012] 4 SCR 971
Court and date
Supreme Court of India (Coram: B. S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar, JJ.), 23 February 2012
Officer(s) at the material time
Not identified in the cited sources (Delhi Police (Ramlila Maidan crackdown force))
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Not stated in the cited sources
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Take disciplinary action against all the erring police officers/personnel who have indulged in brick-batting, have resorted to lathi charge and excessive use of tear gas shells upon the crowd, have exceeded their authority or have acted in a manner not …” (at para 234(a))
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: imprisonment and fine. Compensation: Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 23 February 2012 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Take disciplinary action against all the erring police officers/personnel who have indulged in brick-batting, have resorted to lathi charge and excessive use of tear gas shells upon the crowd, have exceeded their authority or have acted in a manner not …” (para 234(a))

Institutional response

1
23 Feb 2012

Order issued

Concluded
Supreme Court of India External · Binding

The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: (2012) 5 SCC 1; [2012] 4 SCR 971
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.