Indian Express Releases Ahmedabad and Delhi Editions

Delhi Police acted within its statutory mandate to maintain public order when protesters attempted to storm the heart of the capital during the monsoon session of Parliament (Indian Express). The use of lathis and tear gas was a calibrated response to a breach of prohibitory orders that routinely secure the parliamentary zone while the Houses are in session (Indian Express). Lawful dissent is facilitated at designated sites; the decision to march on the restricted zone forced an operational choice between unrestricted access to the legislature's physical perimeter and the safety of public representatives and citizens alike.

You claim the march breached prohibitory orders around Parliament, but the paper reports the same protesters submitted formal demands to the Centre and Sonam Wangchuk stated the agitation will continue (Indian Express), which describes a petitioning movement, not a security threat. Delhi Police met a citizen delegation with lathis and tear gas while Parliament was in session (Indian Express), converting a constitutional right to redress grievances into a law-and-order problem. The monsoon session provided the platform for those demands to be heard inside the House; instead, the state chose force outside it.

You frame the submission of demands and a vow to continue as proof of peaceful intent, but the paper records that protesters "stormed the heart of Delhi" and were stopped only after they reached the parliamentary perimeter (Indian Express). A delegation that petitions the Centre does not thereby earn the right to breach the prohibitory orders that secure a legislature in session; the two acts are distinct in law and in fact. Delhi Police used lathis and tear gas at the point of breach, not at the point of petition, and the distinction is the difference between facilitating dissent and securing the seat of government.

You treat "stormed the heart of Delhi" as a factual finding rather than a police characterisation of a citizen march, and you still do not explain why a delegation that had already submitted its demands to the Centre (Indian Express) needed to be stopped with lathis and tear gas at the parliamentary perimeter instead of being received. Sonam Wangchuk's statement that the agitation will continue (Indian Express) signals that the movement's leverage is moral and political, not physical; meeting that leverage with force while Parliament sits is a choice the government owns.