NEET Protests: Supreme Court Takes Note Of Attacks On Journalists By Protestors In Plea Seeking Safety Of Journalists

The Supreme Court took note of the allegations regarding physical violence and criminal intimidation faced by media personnel at the hands of the protesters who were part of the NEET-UG 2026 student demonstrations in New Delhi.

Observing that the nature of instances highlighted in the connected batch of petitions prima facie warranted an independent probe, the Court recorded that working journalists covering the protests were assaulted and sustained serious injuries.

A writ petition was preferred, highlighting grave incidents of mob coercion, gendered abuse, and destruction of equipment at Jantar Mantar, and sought the framing of a viewpoint-neutral National Minimum Protocol to ensure the safety of field reporters covering public assemblies.

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.

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.

It 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 against student demonstrators.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana noted, "The nature of instances highlighted in this batch of petitions indicates that: 1. Pellet guns were used that led to injuries to even students, including one boy allegedly losing his eyesight. 2. Rubber bullets were used that caused injury to various persons, including a woman. 3. Electric batons were used to disperse the crowd. 4. Lathis embedded with nails were also used, resulting in permanent disability and life-threatening injuries to the protesters. 5. Even a media person was assaulted with serious injuries."

A petition was filed by Advocate Narender Kumar Goswami, who appeared in person, highlighting the grave violence, sexual harassment, and physical assaults faced by field journalists and media crews covering the ongoing student demonstrations in New Delhi. The plea seeks to be tagged alongside the pending batch of petitions concerning police excesses and violence at Jantar Mantar.

The plea sought tagging alongside the pending proceedings and raised a fundamental constitutional question: whether field reporters and media workers can be targeted, physically assaulted, or dispossessed of their equipment merely because a section of a gathering harbours hostility towards the editorial stance of their corporate employers.

Emphasis was laid on the premise that while Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees the right to assemble peacefully without arms, it extends no constitutional umbrella to assault, sexual harassment, mob coercion, or destruction of recording equipment.

The petition highlighted several alarming incidents occurring between July 18, 2026, and July 23, 2026, where journalists covering the student demonstrations were targeted by sections of the crowd.

The plea said, "The allegations include a severe group assault upon Times Now reporter Dev Kotak; snatching of his phone, watch and spectacles; attacks upon Shafali Nigam and her cameraperson; prolonged chasing and intimidation of Jyoti Mishra; surrounding and stone-pelting of a police vehicle in which ABP News reporter Varun Bhasin had sought safety; sexualised abuse, rape and death threats directed at a woman reporter; and physical attacks reported by other journalists."

Clarifying that a field journalist is not the "alter ego" of a news outlet's corporate management, the plea stated that public distrust of mainstream media cannot become a private license to inflict violence on individuals holding a microphone.

At the same time, the petition candidly noted that the narrative is complex: several protest representatives explicitly condemned the attacks and assisted in rescuing journalists, while law enforcement and protesters traded serious allegations of stone-pelting, lathi-charges, and disproportionate force.

The petitioner argued that freedom of expression cannot be surrendered to threats of mob violence, relying upon landmark Supreme Court precedents such as S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, Indibility Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of West Bengal, Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, and Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India.

To prevent irreversible loss of primary electronic evidence—which is vulnerable to automatic overwriting—the petition sought immediate and mandatory preservation of all CCTV footage, police videography, body-worn camera recordings, wireless logs, and raw footage submitted by news organizations.

The Plea sought, "The petition seeks immediate preservation of CCTV, police videography, drone/body-camera footage, wireless and control-room records, deployment and weapon-issue records, victim medical records and original video files voluntarily supplied by journalists or media organisations. It seeks a time-bound, neutral investigation by officers unconnected with the impugned crowd-control deployment, protection of victims and witnesses, and a status report identifying complaints, FIRs, preserved material and investigative steps."

The petition also said that the protesters and journalists have simultaneously alleged excessive police force, including use of batons, tear gas and other crowd-control devices.

The petition highlighted that official statements of condemnation were issued by the Times Network, the Mumbai Press Club, the Federation of Press Clubs, and the Editors Guild of India. While the Editors Guild noted that biased reporting can weaken public trust, it affirmed that criticism crosses a constitutional line when it turns into physical coercion or violence.

Disclosing material mitigating facts, the petition noted that protest movement representatives explicitly condemned the attack on Mr Kotak, issued an apology, and appealed for peace, while several individual protesters actively stepped in to rescue stranded journalists.

Simultaneously, police authorities alleged that participants engaged in stone-pelting, snatched batons, and injured security personnel on July 20 and July 22, 2026. On the other hand, protesters and journalists alleged the deployment of excessive police force, including tear gas and lathi-charges.

The plea prayed, "Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing a neutral, victim-wise and incident-wise investigation into reported attacks, intimidation, sexualised abuse, wrongful restraint, snatching and obstruction of journalists/media workers during the July 2026 student protests in New Delhi, as well as connected allegations of assaults upon police personnel, damage to property and unlawful or disproportionate police force;...Direct Respondent No. 4 to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer not below the rank of Special Commissioner of Police, comprising officers who were not deployed in the impugned crowd-control operations, including a senior woman officer and cyber/forensic experts, or constitute such other independent mechanism as this Hon'ble Court considers appropriate..."

It also prayed for the framing of a viewpoint-neutral 'National Minimum Protocol for the Safety of Journalists and Media Personnel during Public Assemblies' to protect reporters from both mob coercion and unlawful State action.

Cause Title: Narender Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and Ors. [Diary No. 45025 of 2026]