Supreme Court Advocates Protection of Peaceful Protests Amidst Nationwide Student Unrest

Supreme Court's Stance on Protests

New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the constitutional right to peaceful protests. The court highlighted the need for an unbiased investigation into allegations of police brutality and violence against law enforcement during demonstrations, suggesting that a standardized protocol might be necessary for managing public protests across the nation.

A panel consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, addressed a series of petitions linked to the recent student protests concerning the alleged NEET-UG 2026 exam paper leak. They stated that the presence of protests does not justify the excessive use of force by police, while also acknowledging that violence against police officers should not be ignored.

The CJI remarked, "The right to peaceful and lawful protest is firmly enshrined in the Constitution. Just because there is a protest, it does not warrant police excesses."

The Supreme Court further noted that any instances of excessive force should be thoroughly investigated and clarified that the issue extends beyond just Delhi.

"If any excesses occur, they must be independently reviewed. This is not solely a Delhi issue. A uniform protocol is essential. Just because there is a protest does not mean police should resort to lathi-charges. Discipline is vital for a functioning democracy," the CJI's panel stated.

During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi pointed out that injuries sustained by both protesters and police are equally concerning.

"Injuries to individuals, whether they are police officers or protesters, are of equal importance. We may ask the State to clarify why adequate protective gear was not provided to police for such situations," Justice Bagchi noted.

The court also mentioned the necessity for a protocol that allows for peaceful demonstrations while enabling authorities to address any anti-social elements present.

"A protocol should be established. There should be ample space for protests without restrictions. However, if anti-social elements are present, they can be managed. This issue is not limited to Delhi. A consistent protocol is required. Just because there is a protest does not mean there should be a lathi-charge. Self-regulation is crucial to the democratic process," the panel stated.

Advocate Fauzia Shakil, representing one of the petitioners, informed the CJI-led panel about a new writ petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha, which includes detailed allegations regarding recent police actions in Bihar.

"There are two petitions addressing the violence that occurred nationwide during the student protests," senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued, requesting that all related matters be heard together due to ongoing allegations of police misconduct.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh also called for nationwide directives, asserting that the incidents were not limited to Delhi and that a comprehensive framework was necessary.

Another attorney, representing the families of injured police officers, sought permission to join the proceedings, claiming that many officers were severely assaulted during the protests.

In response to the various arguments, the CJI-led panel reiterated that while peaceful protest is a constitutional right, allegations of violence from protesters also warrant investigation.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, stated that the Centre would support the Supreme Court "impartially" and proposed that all related petitions be heard together.

The CJI-led panel accepted this suggestion and ordered that all pending petitions be scheduled for a joint hearing on Tuesday.

This case pertains to claims of excessive force used against students participating in protests across the country regarding the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and associated examination issues.

Previously, CJI Kant clarified that the Supreme Court had not refused to hear the matter but had only declined to consider a one-page representation that was not filed as a proper writ petition.

Dismissing media reports, the CJI explained that only a one-page representation had been submitted at that time, not a formally filed petition.

"The Supreme Court will never deny hearing any case," he stated, adding that once properly filed petitions were submitted, the court agreed to list them.

Last week, the Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police regarding a series of PILs alleging excessive police force during the protests and ordered the preservation of CCTV footage, videography, and other pertinent records related to the July 20 'Sansad Chalo' march organized over the NEET paper leak.

The High Court noted that the allegations were not isolated incidents that could simply be addressed through individual complaints. A Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, requested responses from the authorities within four weeks and mandated the preservation of all relevant electronic records, including CCTV footage and videography, in line with police standard operating procedures.

During the hearing at the Delhi High Court, senior advocates N. Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Vikas Singh, representing various petitioners, claimed that students exercising their constitutional right to protest faced disproportionate force, including lathi-charges and tear gas, and sought the registration of FIRs, preservation of electronic evidence, and an independent investigation.

Conversely, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the Centre and Delhi Police, opposed the PILs, arguing that prohibitory orders were in effect, the crowd had become violent, police officers were injured, and public property was damaged.

The Centre's legal representative contended that the petitions were primarily based on social media videos and that those alleging assault should pursue statutory remedies instead of invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

The Delhi High Court rejected the argument that every affected individual should be required to file separate complaints, stating that if the allegations pertained to a broader incident involving police action during a public protest, they could not be dismissed on that basis. The matter is set to be heard again on September 11.