A bench of justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar passed the direction while expressing the view that "there seems to be some contradictions" on the photographs appearing in the print media and the video clippings before it on the protest relating to the black money row.The apex court said while the reports in the print media indicated that the protesters were beaten up, the video clippings did not indicate so.The bench asked senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for the Delhi police, to file its reply on the Trust's allegation even as amicus curiae Rajeev Dhawan told the court that the authorities "were less than being candid" on the June rpt June 4 midnight incident.Salve, while denying the allegation, assured the court that necessary reply and written submissions would be placed before the bench on the issue.Dhawan, a senior counsel, said the Delhi Police had failed to answer "one crucial question: where did the order (to crackdown) come from? The City police Commissioner or some one higher up?" The counsel told the bench that "it was baffling" as to why and at whose instance the police had acted against the protesters."It was baffling as at whose instance police had acted. Because parallel negotiations were going on," Dhawan told the bench referring to the parleys the yoga guru was holding with fourunioncabinetministers prior to the midnight swoop.The amicus curiae said the police need to establish the claim of "threat perception" and justify the doctrine of "reasonableness and proportionality" in dealing with the protesters.The apex court, while also permitting the counsel for one of the victims Rajbala to file an affidavit on the incident, posted the matter for further hearing to September 30. Ramdev had earlier alleged in the apex court that Union Home Minister P Chidambaram was behind the midnight crackdown on him and his followers during the protest at the Ramlila Maidan.Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Ramdev, had sought a direction that the Home Minister explain the incident and a notice be issued to him personally.Jethmalani alleged there was noorder of externment against Ramdev and therefore Chidambaram must be called to explain when the decision was taken and why it was taken to get the area vacated.The bench had earlier questioned the Delhi police for allegedly not registering the FIR on the complaint of the yoga guru's followers against the alleged atrocities committed by the authorities.The apex court had pointed out that the previous affidavit did not clarify what happened between June 1 and June 3.It said the DVDs and photographs, including the documents, clearly showed that yoga was being practised at the venue and asked the authorities to explain the situation that had provoked them to stop Ramdev from carrying forward his programme. The bench also questioned the police for lobbing tear gas shells and using water cannons at the enclosed premises to drive out the people."Is it not expected that the tear gas and water cannons should be used in enclosed part...Was it not that people at 11:30 p.m. were sleeping? You resort to lathicharge. The photographs show the Commissioner of Police is talking to someone," the bench had observed said.The apex court had on June 6 taken suo motu cognisance of the midnight crackdown and asked the Centre and Delhi Police to explain why it resorted to such a drastic action in the middle of the night against the yoga guru and his followers.Delhi Police, in its affidavit on the pre-dawn swoop at Ramlila Maidan, denied the allegation that it had used force to evict the yoga guru and his supporters from the site and claimed teargas shells were fired only after Ramdev's supporters had turned violent and pelted stones on the police.Justifying its action, police had said the authorities had granted permission to Ramdev to use the ground only to holdyoga camp and not for any other purpose. [More]Tags:2008 thane blaststhanevashi