Can't Delhi residents demand clean air? Why police action on protestors?

The latest episode of The Federal Capital Beat, published on Monday (November 10) afternoon, brought together activist Anil Sood, investigative journalist Saurav Das, and The Federal's Aranya Shankar to examine detentions at a citizens’ protest at India Gate and to assess official responses to Delhi’s air pollution. The discussion focused on protest policing, availability of health advisories, the status of graded restrictions, and demands raised by civil groups.

Protest at India Gate

The programme opened with visuals from the protest, described as a peaceful gathering of parents, environmental activists and children demanding clean air. The panel noted that demonstrators sought to meet elected officials and requested urgent action on air quality.

Participants at the venue were detained towards the end of the protest. The panel recorded that among those detained were young children and mothers.

The anchor stated that protesters framed clean air as a fundamental requirement and carried copies of the Constitution to underscore their rights.

First-person account

Investigative journalist Saurav Das provided an eyewitness account from India Gate. He stated that the protest was a “symbol of resistance” by multiple citizen groups and estimated “almost 500 people” attended. He added that police “used unnecessary force, manhandled some protesters” and “detained” women after 6 p.m., taking them “to the Delhi border and then subsequently released” them.

Das said the action conveyed that “there is really no space for democratic peaceful dissent” at India Gate, recalling that it was earlier a site for public gatherings before protests were redirected to Jantar Mantar.

He said that citizens’ attempts to meet the chief minister were unsuccessful, adding that requests “in September and subsequent months” received responses that “madam is busy with official engagements.”

Access to officials

Das stated that “the chief minister is missing, the health minister of India is missing, the environment minister of India is missing,” framing a lack of meetings as a barrier to redress. He said people chose India Gate because they wanted their demands “before everybody.”

When asked about next steps, Das said the protests would not be “the only” action. He listed options including moving courts, filing RTIs and holding future democratic and peaceful protests.

On immediate demands, Das stated: “Stop fudging AQI numbers,” “issue a health advisory,” and “impose GRAP measures,” while “recalibrating thresholds” so restrictions do not wait for very high AQI levels.

Policy and enforcement

Activist Anil Sood assessed policy and enforcement trends. He asserted that “situation has gone from bad to worse” and described a decline in institutional responsiveness. He referred to interactions sought with officials, stating he “never got appointment.”

Sood said GRAP Stage-II was announced and cited specific provisions: “congestion and encroachments from roads should be removed” and “augment public transport.” He argued these should be ensured “even without GRAP.”

Discussing accountability, Sood asked: “Who verifies whether the GRAP announced has been implemented on ground or not?” He asserted that “individual citizens are being targeted” while “institutional polluters are getting away.”

Data transparency

Sood alleged manipulation of data and referenced past correspondence with authorities. He questioned cloud-seeding efforts and monitoring practices. He said: “Daily I monitor the AQI level… Nobody is telling you truth what are the reasons of pollution.”

He attributed winter stagnation to localised sources, stating: “I say 100% pollution is local,” questioning how pollution could travel “without polluting any city en route” and citing local emission sources.

Sood added that “aviation” and “thermal power plants” contribute to pollution loads, referencing manuals and his ongoing representations on aviation emissions.

Health advisories and preparedness

The panel discussed the absence of “basic health advisories.” Das said this should be “the very first demand” so people can decide how to protect their health. He reiterated that air pollution is “a year-long phenomenon,” noting AQI levels “150–200 even during summers.”

Sood contrasted current responses with earlier public actions, recalling a 2004 demonstration at a shopping mall that proceeded “without any police permission” and “not even one student was questioned by police,” to highlight differences with the detentions at India Gate.

Government communication

Senior journalist Aranya Shankar focused on government communication and optics. She stated that authorities were “too busy managing their perception,” attempting to “prove that they are better than the previous government.”

Shankar referred to a statement by the “environment minister” after the detentions, describing it as not engaging with AQI but with political comparisons. She said there were official claims that “the air is much cleaner than it has been in the last 25 years,” adding: “Numbers say a totally different story.”

She cited initiatives presented in the media, including “artificial rain trial,” “sprinklers and smoke towers,” and videos of sprinklers “near the air quality monitoring station,” characterising them as measures claimed by authorities.

Protest policing and FIRs

The panel noted reports that an FIR was registered “against unknown persons” for violations of prohibitory orders after the protest. Shankar said, “If this is the way the government is going to react, I don’t know if there is much hope.”

Das described a “police officer… with tear gas,” noting it was not used, and contrasted that preparedness with the protestors’ public-health framing.

Sood called the detentions “shocking,” stating: “In Gandhi’s nation where satyagraha was the norm… the peaceful gathering with black hearts was treated like criminals.”

GRAP expectations

Sood argued that provisions listed under GRAP Stages II–IV reflect citizens’ “fundamental right” and asked why they should not be implemented “day in and day out.” He said implementation requires verification on the ground.

Das’s demands included earlier triggering of restrictions, not “only when the AQI crosses 400, 500, 700,” and a central, multi-state approach since “it’s a North India problem.”

Shankar observed that government communication emphasised other optics, including river clean-up visuals, asking why similar “alacrity” was not visible on air quality actions.

Civic mobilisation

On the path forward, Das said all “citizen groups” would “put our heads together” to decide next steps, listing courts, RTIs and future “democratic and peaceful” protests as options.

Sood urged “pressure… by people,” calling for more youth participation. He recalled earlier student-led action and contrasted it with the current policing of assemblies.

Shankar underlined public concern by noting the low visibility of “health advisories,” and referenced the filing of an FIR after the protest as part of the present context.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.