The Supreme Court, while refusing to pass any immediate orders against a proposed social media-announced protest march by the Cockroach Janta Party ahead of the upcoming BRICS Summit, remarked that maintaining public order falls strictly within the domain of law enforcement agencies.

The Court said that it expects both citizens and state authorities to operate within the framework of the law, noting there were no compelling circumstances to presume lawlessness.

The Court recently constituted a high-powered judicial committee 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 Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana tagged the applications with the main matter and referred the petition to the High Power Committee.


During the hearing, Advocate Rizwan submitted that the application was preferred in light of subsequent developments by a retired police officer, highlighting an unpermitted protest march announced on social media, scheduled to proceed through Lutyens' Delhi near India Gate.

Rizwan contended that while a High-Powered Committee had already been seized of the underlying representations pursuant to prior elaborate directions of the Court, the planned march posed significant law and order concerns.

Chief Justice Kant orally observed, "All these factors are to be considered by other quarters, not by us. We cannot dictate or stop anything...These are issues that are to be taken care of by the law and order enforcing agency. It is their responsibility to maintain law and order. They will determine what is legal, illegal, or permissible. We expect them to act within that framework. We expect both sides to respect, honor, and follow the law of the land accordingly."

It was pointed out that international dignitaries were slated to arrive in Delhi on September 12 and 13 for the upcoming BRICS Summit. It was submitted that unapproved demonstrations in a sensitive diplomatic corridor could trigger security missteps or lawlessness, thereby risking adverse international advisories and compromising national reputation.

He said, "What happened at the AI Summit? People were stripping themselves and dancing at the AI Summit. This is not hypothetical. Presumptions and apprehensions survive on the experience of what we have seen...Now the question arises as to what has been reiterated. Nobody can challenge the right of protest of anybody. When we were reading about West Bengal politics, the erstwhile government was not granting permission for many yatras...What was the procedure adopted? The government—again I say, if they apply to the police, maybe the police won't grant permission...So whatever the political party is asking, it might be relevant for them. I concede, but can they not wait for 10 days for the BRICS summit to end and then in the interim apply to the government? If the government does not allow them, they can come to the Supreme Court via urgent mentioning. This is my only submission."

To which Chief Justice Kant said, "The problem is that there are two parts to this. One is the law and order aspect, and the second is a kind of policy issue. I think let the stakeholders talk to them, and we, at least as of now, will presume and have no reason to doubt that everybody will act and behave in a very responsible, peaceful, and lawful manner. So right now, for us, there is no compelling circumstance to presume that anything wrong will happen."

Advocate Rizwan submitted that no such application has been submitted, keeping BRICS in consideration.

He added that this is a sensitive area, but sensitivity cannot be a deterrent for the protest.

Advocate Rizwan also argued, "They are amending the BNSS of their own free will. It will set a very wrong precedent in the country. I do not know how long I will live; my life is always in danger. I do not know if I will be here or not. The Bench will be executing other responsibilities after some time, but the nation will not remember this pleasantly. The recklessness and arrogance that certain people are exhibiting—it appears they are amending the law on their own free will. It appears so, because I grew up understanding that at least permission from the concerned police station is required."

The Court assured him that everybody will follow the law, abide by regulatory measures, and respect each other's rights.

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 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]

Tags: