The rule the site is built on

Nothing appears here as a fact without a source attached. Where no document exists, the page says so and leaves the space empty. Every claim carries a label: verified, corroborated, reported, disputed, unverified or unknown. Each label has a published definition that the site applies to itself.

Authority and evidence are kept apart

That an office had the authority to order police action is a statement about law and administrative structure. That a particular office did order a particular action is a statement that needs a document. The archive maps the offices with authority over these incidents. It names none of them as having given an order, because no order has been found.

Two governments have put an account on affidavit before the Supreme Court. The archive records what each affidavit says, and is explicit that a statement on affidavit is evidence of the statement and proves nothing about the event by itself.

Bihar has told the Supreme Court that its police discharged firearms at Siwan

On 25 July 2026: four rounds from an AK-47 near JP Chowk, and two rounds from a 9mm pistol near Hathi Chowk, on the account reported on 18 August 2026. That is the state's own description of what its officers did. The archive records the discharge as established on that basis, and adopts none of the state's characterisations of why.

The same affidavit says the AK-47 was a platoon-level weapon meant for special operations and not for routine law-and-order duty. That is an admission about deployment. It says nothing about conduct on the day, and deployment is an authorisation question. Who decided that such a weapon would be present at a student protest is recorded as unknown.

Delhi Police has stated on affidavit that facial recognition was deployed at Jantar Mantar

The deployment itself is recorded as corroborated. Whether it was confined to persons with existing criminal records, as Delhi Police asserts, is recorded as disputed, because the accounts conflict and the archive holds nothing that settles it.

The first primary document is a court's own record

The Delhi High Court cause list for 22 July 2026 fixes the case number and the bench in W.P.(CRL) 2127/2026, Shakeel Abbas v. Union of India and Ors. It is filed with a note on what it does not establish: a cause list shows that a matter was listed and before whom, and says nothing about what was ordered. The reported directions in that proceeding stay corroborated until the order itself is in hand, and become verified only then.

A deadline that has passed

The National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognisance on 25 July 2026 and gave the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, two weeks to report. That deadline has passed. The archive records the date it fell due.

No information application has been filed by this project yet

The questions and the offices that hold the answers are published in advance.

What it is not. Not a campaign, a petition or a list of allegations. It does not accuse any office of having ordered anything. It publishes documents and states plainly where documents are missing.

Quoting it. Please carry the label with the claim. Corroborated and verified mean different things here, and the difference is the point of the site. Every record carries a citation block with its identifier, its state, the date it was retrieved and a permanent link.

The data. The full record set can be downloaded. Records written by this project may be reused with attribution and a link back. Documents obtained from public offices are public records and this project claims no rights over them. See reuse and licence.

Corrections. corrections@whogavetheorder.in. A correction is applied to the record and appears in the public change log with the date.

Documents. evidence@whogavetheorder.in · Legal. legal@whogavetheorder.in