The Supreme Court has constituted a High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) to comprehensively investigate grievances, address allegations of sexual assault and online harassment against protesters, and evaluate police conduct during the NEET paper leak protests.

The Members of the Committee are:

i. Justice (Retd.) R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of the Supreme Court (Chairperson)

ii. Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, Former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court (Member)

iii. Justice Shalinder Kaur, Former Judge of the Delhi High Court (Member)

iv. Shri Rishi Kumar Shukla, Former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (Member), and

v. Dr. L.R. Bishnoi, Retired Director General of Police, Meghalaya (Member)

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana has observed, "This HPEC has been constituted bearing in mind a wide variety of considerations, including the individual expertise and experience of each of its members, as well as the diversity of the Committee, among other factors. We are confident that the recommendations of the HPEC will be of invaluable assistance to this Court, and the Committee will be able to undertake a comprehensive assessment of all such issues as merit due contemplation."


During the hearing, the Court has said that it will pass appropriate orders for the constitution of a High Powered Committee.

The Court said that a prima facie case for an independent and impartial investigation and consequentially the need to constitute a HPEC for the said purpose was made out.

The Issues which will be considered by the HPEC are as follows: 

Petitioner's Side

1. The use of excessive force and violence against protestors by police authorities and other agencies without adequate warning and the question of ensuring a proportionate and measured police response during protests, public gatherings, and peaceful assemblies.

3. The desirability of banning the use of metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile-action guns.

4. The necessity of ensuring that police and security personnel wear proper uniforms and visible nameplates at the time of effecting arrests, including an enquiry into the allegations pertaining to the monitoring and surveillance of protestors by police personnel.

6. The alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, molestation and/or any secondary victimisation directed against female protestors.

7. The provision of medical and other requisite support, including award of compensation, to victims of alleged police abuse, including the manner and adequacy of such support extended thus far.

8. Regulation of the issuance of blanket prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the establishment of strict constitutional thresholds and safeguards to prevent Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Respondent's Side

1. The alleged use of force and violence by protestors against police officials and other security personnel.

2. The damage occasioned to public property on account of the actions of the protestors during the course of the said demonstrations.

3. The injuries sustained by the police forces in the course of discharging their duties, as well as the consequent mental and emotional trauma.

The Court observed, "In our opinion, all of the issues enumerated hereinabove merit analysis by the HPEC, upon due consideration of the material and submissions placed before it by the parties. The HPEC is also at liberty to consider any other issues incidental thereto, as it may so deem fit...It goes without saying that the HPEC constituted by us shall be empowered to enlist the assistance of forensic, technical, and domain experts in the course of its enquiry, should it view it necessary so to do."

The Court also said that the Committee shall undertake a continuous and periodic assessment of the issues enumerated hereinabove, and shall submit its interim findings periodically so as to enable this Court to take appropriate measures and issue such directions as may be warranted.

The Court recommended that the HPEC may address certain issues on a priority basis, foremost amongst which is the matter relating to the alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, and molestation of female protestors. Further, the HPEC may also assess the grievous harm and injury allegedly caused to protestors by police authorities and security personnel. 

The Court granted liberty to the parties to approach the HPEC and submit such relevant material, documentary evidence, and suggestions as they may deem fit, in such manner as may be decided by the HPEC through its Chairperson.

The Court directed, "We also deem it necessary, for clarity, to direct that the Police Authorities, Para-Military Forces, and other Investigating Agencies, who were directed vide order dated 28.07.2026, preserve all CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records, and PCR call logs pertaining to the student protests, furnish the entire record to the HPEC and extend their full cooperation."

Earlier, on August 3, 2026, the Court clarified that the NCT of Delhi and state governments were at liberty to close or withdraw First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against candidates and citizens protesting. The Court also clarified that the word "criminal antecedents" in the previous order is to be read as grave and heinous offences.

The Court also separated the matter concerning a writ petition contending that the Jantar Mantar located in New Delhi is not a suitable venue for protests, as they cause inconvenience to residents and disrupt essential services.

The Court had issued interim directions prohibiting coercive action against students without criminal antecedents, ordering the immediate release of all detained minors, and mandating the preservation of all digital evidence and CCTV footage.

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

Appearances:

Petitioners: Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shoeb Alam, Shyam Divan, N. Hariharan, Advocate Vrinda Grover, Advocate Mandakini Singh, AOR Ashima Mandla and others.

Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG SV Raju, Advocate General S. D. Sanjay, Advocate General Alok Sangwan and others.

Click here to read/download the Order


Tags: