World

Amnesty Reports Excessive Force by Indian Police During Protests

Amnesty International claims Indian police employed excessive force against protesters in recent demonstrations, corroborated by witness testimonies and visual evidence.

24 August 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Amnesty Reports Excessive Force by Indian Police During Protests — Archive photoPhoto: Nilroy (Nilanjana Roy) · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0

Amnesty International reported that police in India used excessive force during protests in New Delhi and Bihar. The organization cited witness testimony and verified visual evidence which indicated the use of various crowd control measures, including pellet-firing shotguns, tear gas launchers, grenades, batons, and electric shock devices.

The protests, described as youth-led, were triggered by recent political developments, including the resignation of the education minister last month. Amnesty's findings contrast with the police's assertion that any force deployed was in response to escalating violence from the demonstrators.

The allegations come at a time when India’s Supreme Court has established a panel to investigate allegations of violence involving both police and protesters, indicating the seriousness of the situation.

In addition to Amnesty's assessment, various media reports have highlighted concerns regarding the treatment of protesters during these demonstrations, raising questions about law enforcement's approach to public dissent.

The situation has garnered significant attention, with ongoing discussions about the balance between maintaining public order and protecting the rights of individuals to assemble and express their views.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.