The Supreme Court agreed to list an intervention application filed by food volunteer Junaid Malik, who alleged that he was illegally abducted, blindfolded, and dropped on a remote highway near Mussoorie by police personnel for managing food stalls at the NEET 2026 protest site.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India and the State of NCT of Delhi, strongly objected upon mentioning of the plea, arguing that Malik was not a victim and that it constituted a separate issue.

However, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana agreed to list the matter for tomorrow, July 29, 2026.

Earlier in the day, 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.  It also indicated its inclination to order an independent and fair probe into the widespread violence and alleged police excesses during student protests over the NEET 2026 paper leak.

An Intervention Application was preferred before the Court by Junaid Malik, who was seen serving food to the protestors, seeking intervention in the ongoing proceedings concerning the alleged arbitrary and coercive state action against demonstrators during the NEET-UG 2026 controversy. The Applicant pleaded that he was subjected to persistent police harassment merely for providing food and water supplies to students and the general public at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Malik, submitted, "I am appearing for the person called Junaid Malik who was supplying food..."

SG Mehta interrupted and said, "That is a separate issue...He was not a victim..."

Bhushan continued, "This person was supplying food to the...he was picked up by the Police, blindfolded, taken to Mussorie and dropped on a highway there. His whole family was questioned that how are you supplying food?...So this was totally illegal on the part of police and all that...That needs to be investigated."

CJI Kant said, "All these issues may be taken before SIT or committee..."

The Court then issued the interim directions on the main matter after hearing both sides.

After the order was dictated, Bhushan submitted, "If the plea by Mohammad Junaid can be listed tomorrow..."

To which SG Mehta replied, "I strongly object."

CJI Kant said, "It will be listed."

The Applicant, a law graduate and social worker, was present at the protest site for 35 days commencing from June 20, 2026, where he assisted in coordinating food and water distribution. Although he held no formal leadership position within the protest setup, his voluntary work received wide media coverage. The Applicant submitted that on account of this public visibility, both he and his friend were subjected to unlawful, arbitrary detention by police authorities without being informed of the grounds of arrest, and without any arrest memo, detention memo, or General Diary entry being prepared.

The Applicant outlined a series of coercive measures executed against him. On the night of July 24, 2026, while returning from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital after receiving an anti-rabies injection, the auto-rickshaw carrying the Applicant and his friend was intercepted by an unnumbered white Scorpio at approximately midnight. Four to five police personnel forcibly transferred them into the vehicle, blindfolded them, and drove them to an undisclosed location while confiscating and searching their mobile phones.

The Applicant further stated that they were kept in an interrogation-like setup overnight, where senior police officers issued threats, subjected them to verbal abuse, and aggressively questioned them regarding the funding sources for the protest food stalls. The following morning, on July 25, 2026, the duo was taken blindfolded on a five-to-six-hour drive and abandoned in a forested area roughly 16 kilometers from the Dehradun–Mussoorie Road. They were eventually forced to hire a cab from Dehradun back to Delhi.

"That the Applicant and his friend were abandoned in a jungle situated approximately 16 kilometres from the Dehradun– Mussoorie Road. Before leaving, police officers asked them to face towards the mountains, after which they drove away in the vehicle, leaving them on the road. Their mobile phones were returned to them with a direction that they should not switch them on for an hour. That after the officials left, applicant’s friend took a photograph of a police station situated approximately 100 metres away", the Plea said.

Simultaneously, the Applicant’s family members were allegedly subjected to intimidation. On July 23, 2026, the Applicant's father was picked up from his residence and detained at Masuri Police Station, Ghaziabad, for six hours, during which he was interrogated regarding the family’s bank accounts and the Applicant’s whereabouts.

It was submitted, "It is submitted that during the aforesaid raids and detentions, the family members were repeatedly pressured by the police officials to contact the Applicant, persuade him to return home, refrain from participating in the protest and to appear before the police station, and disclose the source of funds being used for the protests...That the questioning and coercive actions against the family members were carried out, inter alia, by the DSP (Rural), Ghaziabad, the ASP Masuri, the SHO Masuri, and two Intelligence Bureau officers from Delhi, who also questioned the family members of Applicant’s married sister."

The application contended that the arbitrary actions of the state authorities and police personnel violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Applicant prayed for leave to intervene in the pending Writ Petition, protection from coercive action for himself and his family, and a thorough judicial inquiry into his unlawful detention and the intimidation of his family members.

Cause Title: Junaid Malik in Manoj Kumar Jha v. Union of India [W.P. (Crl.) 283 of 2026]

Tags: