On July 28, 2026, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India — led by the Chief Justice, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana — took up a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution over the violent scenes that unfolded during student protests at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and which later spread to Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, and Kerala.
What Sparked the Protests
The unrest traces back to allegations of a leaked question paper for the NEET 2026 examination. Students took to the streets in protest, and what followed, according to the petitioners, was a heavy-handed police response that violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.
The Allegations on Record
The petitioners placed a range of disturbing claims before the Court, including:
- The use of pellet guns, with one young protestor allegedly losing his eyesight
- Rubber bullets causing injuries to several people, including a woman
- Electronic batons deployed to disperse crowds
- Lathis embedded with nails, leading to permanent and life-threatening injuries
- An assault on a journalist covering the protests, who sustained serious injuries
Some of this alleged violence, the petitioners say, was carried out by police personnel — both in uniform and in plain clothes.
The Other Side of the Story
The Court also heard from counsel representing injured police personnel and their families, who offered a starkly different account. They alleged that protestors, along with anti-social elements who had infiltrated the demonstration, resorted to stone-throwing and other violent acts, injuring more than 280 police officers on duty.
Representing the Union of India and the Delhi government, the Solicitor General told the Court there was no objection to an independent and fair probe into the violence, while firmly denying that police had committed any excesses. He argued that hardened criminals and undesirable elements had infiltrated the protest site.
The Court’s Reasoning
The bench observed that the petitioners had, prima facie, made out a compelling case for an independent and impartial investigation — one that could address the concerns of both the protestors and the families of injured police personnel. However, rather than issuing a final order at this stage, the Court chose to give the NCT of Delhi and the Union of India a short window to file their responses on affidavit. It also issued notice to the Chief Secretaries of the seven affected states, whose Advocate Generals or standing counsel have been asked to appear online at the next hearing.
Interim Directions
While reserving a final decision, the Court put in place several protective measures with immediate effect:
- Preservation of evidence — All CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records, and PCR call logs connected to the protests must be preserved.
- Data privacy for protestors — Personal information and digital data collected about protestors during the demonstrations must be preserved but not disclosed publicly for now.
- No public data dumps — Authorities may not publish any public details of the protestors, particularly students.
- No coercive action against student protestors — Investigations into the registered FIRs may continue, but no coercive measures can be taken against protesting students, unless they have prior criminal antecedents.
- Release of minors — Any child under 18 arrested or detained in connection with the protests, and without a criminal record, must be released, if needed on a simple bond executed by themselves or a family member.
What’s Next
The Court has posted the matter for further hearing on August 3, 2026, when it will consider the affidavits filed by the Centre, the Delhi government, and the responses of the states involved.
This summary is based on the Supreme Court’s record of proceedings dated July 28, 2026, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 280/2026 and connected matters. It is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.