While hearing a plea seeking directions to restrain the Union of India and state governments from arbitrarily withdrawing cases arising out of recent student protests, the Court has remarked that the authorities need to tread very carefully so that the youngsters don't indulge in violence. It further added that force is not a solution in these situations.

The plea also prayed for directions to identify individuals who allegedly used derogatory language against security personnel and mandate them to perform community service.

Recently, the Court has 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 NEET-UG paper leak.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana tagged the Petition with the connected matters for consideration on the scheduled date.

 Advocate Rizwan Ahmed appeared for the Petitioner

Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked, "In democratic movements, which initially commence with a peaceful march, and if some kind of incident takes place, I think forces also need to have a lot of restraint in order to ensure that the situation does not go out of hand. And I think stray incidents, wherever they are happening, need to be dealt with very carefully. The authorities need to tread very carefully so that the youngsters don't indulge in violence. A better way is counselling them, pacifying them. The biggest, most powerful tool is listening. That you listen to them and see why they are shouting. And maybe after that, you will find a via media. But let us leave it to the wisdom of the law enforcement agencies. They know better than us how to deal with this kind of situation...Force is not a solution."

The petitioner submitted that the entire agitation revolved around two key points: one is accountability, and the other is students. It was submitted that the entire agitation started with accountability of the Minister and the accountability of the Police.

"The moot question is 15 days have passed—where is the accountability of the so-called organizers? Why am I saying "so-called organizers"? Because it is not a registered organization, hence I have to use this word...I am seeing, within my reasonably long life and limited legal knowledge, that the organizers in such a mayhem in the national capital, in a high-security zone, for the last 15 days, are moving channel to channel on a silver platter, still giving provocative statements, still not allowing the fire to douse down, and still fanning it", Ahmed submitted.

Drawing a comparison with public and religious congregations, Counsel contended that organisers are routinely held accountable for untoward incidents or stampedes occurring on site. It was argued that the law and society could not be allowed to take a backseat merely because the administration found itself on the back foot.

Counsel expressed grave concern over setting a dangerous precedent, asserting that if the government succumbed to agitation in the capital, similar lawlessness would ripple across states such as Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

He cautioned against allowing stone-pelters to go scot-free without judicial scrutiny or penal accountability. Drawing analogies to past agitations at Shaheen Bagh and the Singhu border, Counsel pointed out that the march towards Parliament proceeded in violation of twenty-two conditions imposed by law enforcement authorities.

The Bench said, "If some misguided element is indulging in stone-pelting or so... still, these youngsters are required to be pacified, counselled. They need a lot of advisory counselling. And any aggressive response coming from the other side in the name of the mighty State may also unnecessarily aggravate the situation and precipitate it to leading to further violence. So, that needs to be avoided. You see, law and order machinery, they are well-conversant with the situation."

He added that permitting an unregulated assembly to march toward the Parliament posed severe security risks, as any breach of the high-security zone could have compelled security forces to open fire, leading to catastrophic consequences.

"Farmers were at the Singhu border. The people at Shaheen Bagh were at Shaheen Bagh. Tomorrow, Generation Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta will come! Will they—will the people at Singhu border, tomorrow they will come to the Parliament with their tractors! Tomorrow, people from Shaheen Bagh will come to the Parliament with their tractors!...When the permission was not there, 22 conditions were violated by the so-called organizers—because it is not a registered organization —which they gave to the police. Then the police did not allow them to go on a march to the Parliament. This is the temple of democracy..we have to see the motive and intention", he submitted.

He also stated, "If 500 people would have entered the Parliament, who knows they were not carrying a country-made gun? Who knows that they were not carrying some country-made bomb? The Parliament security is not made to cater to or handle 500 people. It is a highly sophisticated weapon force; they would have opened fire! What would have... Lordship, they were not marching on a national highway. They were not marching on a railway line. They were marching on the temple of democracy! Everything should be accountable..."

The Court 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.

The Court also asked the Centre to preserve the ammunition log of Rapid Action Force (RAF) deployed at the Jantar Mantar and took note of a plea on the use of metallic pellet guns during the protests.

Previously, the Court also took note of the allegations regarding physical violence and criminal intimidation faced by media personnel at the hands of the protesters. It was also emphasized that injuries suffered by on-duty police officers during the nationwide NEET-UG 2026 paper leak protests are a matter of equal concern alongside allegations of police excesses.

Accordingly, without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the Court listed the matter for further consideration.

Cause Title: Maneesh Kumar Solanki v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 958/2026]

Tags: