The Supreme Court agreed to hear a batch of writ petitions and intervention applications concerning alleged police excesses against students protesting the NEET paper leak, alongside pleas highlighting violence against on-duty police personnel.

During the oral mentioning, the Court remarked that the right to peaceful protest is an essential constitutional guarantee that cannot be denied, while emphasizing that injury to any individual—whether a student or a police officer—is of equal concern.

Stressing that the proceedings should not be treated as adversarial litigation, the Court directed all related matters to be listed at the top of the board tomorrow to consider formulating a uniform, all-India protocol to balance public agitation rights with law enforcement safety.

Previously, the Court agreed to hear two separate petitions alleging police excesses against students protesting against the NEET paper leak. Earlier that day, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant dismissed as "reckless” media reports that he had denied an urgent hearing on a plea challenging the July 20 police action against students, saying it was only a representation and not a petition.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana remarked, "One way out is that today's matter also we take up tomorrow, and we list this matter also...right to protest—peaceful protest is absolutely guaranteed under our constitutional scheme, that can't be denied. So, as long as it is a peaceful agitation...there should be a protocol in place where... if suppose youth want to agitate on an issue, they have a right to agitate...There should be provided a proper space, proper... in terms of that, there should not be any impediment, there should not be any restriction on that. But if there is someone else, some anti-social element or somebody has done anything wrong, that of course can be taken care of."

 During the oral mentioning, multiple advocates appeared before the Bench seeking urgent listing and tag-along of their respective writ petitions and intervention applications.

Counsel representing the aggrieved students submitted that several petitions were already pending consideration regarding the brutal assault on students. It was submitted that the comprehensive writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners contained updated facts, including instances of violence, and sought the laying down of mandatory, all-India guidelines to govern the conduct of law enforcement during public agitations.

Simultaneously, counsel appearing on behalf of the family members of injured police personnel prayed for permission to participate in the proceedings, emphasizing the need to protect police personnel in uniform who had faced severe violence during the agitation.

He said, "I represent the family of the policemen who have been actually brutally beaten. So, we would like to participate, My Lord, present our perspective to protect these police as well in uniform...I'm submitting that the rights of the policemen in uniform... they are subject to discipline. I represent the family members who are actually the family members of the police who have been brutalized. There are videos circulating, My Lord; they have been kicked, lynched, literally."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the entire batch of matters, including the fresh petitions and intervention applications, could be conveniently posted for hearing on the following day.

The Bench observed that the right to peaceful protest was an essential constitutional guarantee that could not be denied.

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "And please don't take it as adversarial litigation...If there are excesses committed, yes, those should be independently looked into. Those should be examined, as to who are persons responsible for what kind of excesses have been committed. And what is the preventive measures and guidelines, mandatory guidelines, that should be followed in future to ensure...It's not a question of Delhi only. It's a question of all India. Aggression can be there at different places. So, this... a uniformity in protocol is also required to be maintained everywhere. It should not be that merely because there is an agitation, therefore lathi-charge. It should not be merely because there is an agitation, meaning there must be a violent incident. It should also not be there. So, these things need to be observed..."

Observing that the litigation should not be treated as adversarial, the Bench stated that any instances of police excesses required an independent probe, while simultaneously stress-testing the adequacy of protective equipment provided to personnel on duty.

Accordingly, the Court directed all related writ petitions and interlocutory applications to be listed for hearing on the top of the board tomorrow, in order to enable the Bench to go through the pleadings and consider the formulation of a balanced, harmonized protocol.

Another bench of the Supreme Court has also made suggestions in a plea concerning structural and administrative reforms for conducting the NEET-UG examination, highlighting the urgent need to transition from temporary measures to permanent institutionalization.

Recently, the Delhi High Court had also issued notice to the Delhi Police and the Union of India in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging excessive use of force by the Delhi Police during the Cockroach Janta Party’s protest march at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi.

Cause Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors.[W.P.(Crl.) No. 280/2026] and Himanshu v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 279/2026] 

Tags: