NEET Protests- Supreme Court To Constitute High-Powered Committee To Probe Allegations Of Police Excesses & Violence By Protesters

The Supreme Court has said that it will constitute a high-powered judicial committee—comprising a former Supreme Court judge, a former High Court Chief Justice, and a retired Director General rank officer—to comprehensively investigate grievances, address allegations of sexual assault and online harassment against protesters, and evaluate police conduct during the NEET paper leak protests.

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 Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana suggested, "There is one issue on which we need the assistance of all of you...We have obtained consent of a former Director General of the CBI, a very eminent officer who retired a couple of years ago, to become a member of the committee...We have also obtained the consent of a former Director General of Police of a State, which has nothing to do with this matter...We do not want a situation tomorrow where somebody raises an objection because there are allegations involving the CBI and therefore questions the inclusion of a former CBI Director. We do not want to disclose the names in open court because we do not want to cause any embarrassment to either officer...Of the two, whom do you think we should include? Or should we leave that decision to ourselves?"

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan and Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover appeared for the Petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that a neutral judicial investigation would comprehensively address the grievances raised by both the affected police families and the State. He proposed the appointment of designated nodal officers—representing the protesters and the prosecution respectively—to streamline representations and maintain structured communication before the committee.

Supporting the suggestion, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concurred with the mechanism, following which the Chief Justice affirmed the constitution of the judicial committee and granted liberty to all interested parties to either approach the committee directly or raise their grievances before the Court.

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover urged the Bench to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIRs instituted against students and young protesters across the country. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the State had no objection to quashing FIRs against bona fide student protesters. However, he clarified that individuals with serious criminal antecedents who had allegedly infiltrated the demonstrations—and were implicated in grave offences such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and offences under the POCSO Act—must be investigated separately and could not be equated with student examinees.

Mehta clarified the State's position on prosecuting protesters, stating that the Court did not need to undertake the manual exercise of bifurcating the FIRs itself.

Referring to Paragraph 47 of the counter-affidavit, the law officer submitted that the government stood by its assurance to bona fide student demonstrators and that no investigation would proceed against protesters, except for 2,873 individuals who had been identified as having serious criminal antecedents involving grave offences such as murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rape, and offences under the POCSO Act.

He added that the cases against these identified individuals would be investigated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Police Commissioner.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the law officer regarding the specific case numbers where the State proposed to continue its investigation. In response, SG Mehta stated that the State of Bihar had already furnished the specific FIR numbers in its counter-affidavit filed the previous day, while the FIR numbers for Delhi and other affected regions were currently being compiled and would be placed on record shortly.

One of the Petitioners brought to the Court's notice serious allegations of sexual assault, molestation, and widespread online harassment targeting female protesters and vulnerable individuals through social media platforms.

CJI Surya Kant said, "Whosoever is responsible, there can be no excuse and no justification. It must be taken seriously and taken to its logical conclusion...That is why we are constituting a high-powered committee. The committee will look into each and every aspect of these matters. Recommendations will come before us, and we will thereafter issue periodical directions to give effect to them."

Counsel further submitted that social media accounts belonging to victims were being systematically throttled or disabled, while individuals posting obscene and abusive content—including a viral video cited in open court—remained unpunished.

The Court remarked, "We are constituting a committee comprising a former Supreme Court judge, a former Chief Justice of a High Court and comprising another officer who has retired at the level of Director General...We will provide all necessary infrastructure facilities to the committee. We are quite sure that the committee will give an immediate voice and audience to any victim who approaches it. We will await the recommendations which the committee will make from time to time, and the necessary legal consequences must follow."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, urged the Supreme Court to send a strong signal against police misconduct, highlighting that the affidavit filed late at night by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) failed to disclose whether any administrative action had been taken against individual officers.

The senior counsel pointed out that while the affidavit admitted that police personnel were deployed in plain clothes and detailed the measures taken at the protest site, it remained completely silent regarding the mandatory display of name tags and internal disciplinary proceedings.

CJI Kant said, "If we ourselves start examining these allegations and giving findings or directions, we may end up performing the role of the high-powered committee which we have proposed to constitute...There are certain issues which require immediate attention. There are other issues, such as laying down guidelines and protocols, which require more detailed consideration."

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover also suggested a woman member in the committee.

CJI Kant concluded, "If all of you are able to give us recommendation by today, we will be able to pass an order by tomorrow...Meanwhile, let us be sure that the Committee becomes functional as soon as possible."

The Court was also apprised that the Delhi Police has filed its counter affidavit in the matter. It has been reported that the Delhi Police has denied the use of any excessive force against the Students. It has been reported that the Affidavit said that the protests had ceased to be peaceful after a few persons allegedly breached the barricades and attempted to move towards Parliament.

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.

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.

The Court also 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.

On July 27, 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.

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.

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]