SC orders release of NEET protesters without criminal records, signals tougher rules on police crackdowns

In a significant intervention that could redefine the legal framework governing police action during public demonstrations, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that no coercive action be taken against protesters in connection with FIRs registered over the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) anti-NEET paper leak protests until further orders. It also directed the immediate release of detained minors with no criminal antecedents and indicated that it may frame stronger nationwide guidelines governing police response to protests.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that the allegations placed before the court were serious enough to warrant an independent inquiry. Holding that the material on record prima facie justified such an exercise, the Bench said the proposed probe would examine allegations of police excesses as well as claims that protesters attacked police personnel.

As an interim measure, the court ordered the preservation of all CCTV footage, drone recordings, police body-camera videos, wireless camera footage and other surveillance material related to the protests. The objective, the Bench said, was to ensure that crucial evidence remained intact for the proposed high-powered inquiry.

The court issued notices to the Union government, the Delhi government and the governments of Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, where allegations of police excesses have been raised. It also directed the respective Advocates General to appear virtually at the next hearing, signalling that the court intends to examine the issue as one of nationwide importance rather than a dispute confined to Delhi.

Among its immediate reliefs, the court directed that all detainees below the age of 18 arrested during the protests be released forthwith, provided they have no criminal antecedents. The direction came amid allegations that several juveniles, particularly in Bihar, had been detained in violation of the safeguards under the juvenile justice law.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench that the government had no objection to an independent probe but opposed the names suggested by the petitioners for the inquiry panel. He submitted that the composition of the committee should be left entirely to the Supreme Court.

“I am with the students. I don't believe students would have committed violence,” Mehta told the Bench, while maintaining that hardened criminals and anti-social elements had infiltrated the demonstrations and attacked police personnel. According to the Centre, more than 200 police personnel sustained injuries during the protests.

The Solicitor General said the government was prepared to accept any inquiry supervised or constituted by the Supreme Court and sought two days to file a detailed affidavit, along with the findings of the government's own inquiry.

Making it clear that the inquiry would not be one-sided, the Bench observed that it would examine allegations against both the police and the protesters. "Everything has to be probed scientifically," Chief Justice Kant remarked, stressing that the investigation must be evidence-based, transparent and impartial.

The hearing saw extensive submissions from senior advocates representing the petitioners, who alleged widespread violations of constitutional safeguards protecting the right to peaceful protest.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the court that the petitioners had compiled state-wise evidence documenting alleged police excesses across multiple states. According to him, the material includes photographs and videos purportedly showing indiscriminate lathi-charge, tear gas shelling, police personnel operating in plain clothes, the use of pellet guns and violations of the Supreme Court's earlier judgments laying down principles governing police action during demonstrations.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the Delhi Police itself had failed to follow its prescribed crowd-control protocol. He submitted that no prohibitory orders under Section 144 had been imposed at Jantar Mantar despite police action against protesters. Under the police's own standard operating procedures, authorities are required to first issue warnings through loudspeakers, followed by water cannons before resorting to lathi-charge or tear gas if a protest turns violent.

“They didn't use water cannons,” Sankaranarayanan submitted, while also alleging that armed personnel in plain clothes were deployed during the operation.

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat argued that the situation in Bihar was much more severe than in Delhi. He submitted that despite the Bihar government's announcement that it would withdraw FIRs, over 140 people remained in detention, most of them between 16 and 18 years of age, including one 13-year-old child. He further alleged that several minors had been kept in custody for over 40 hours before being produced before a magistrate, in violation of statutory safeguards.

Senior advocates Prashant Bhushan and Farasat also referred to the case of volunteer Junaid Malik, who had allegedly gone to distribute food during the protests but was picked up by the police, blindfolded and later abandoned on the Mussoorie highway. They further alleged that members of Malik's family were also detained and questioned.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan urged the court to prevent authorities from using facial recognition technology and video footage to identify or target protesters. He sought directions restraining the publication of photographs and biometric information collected during the demonstrations. Divan also referred to media reports allegedly showing the use of electric shock weapons, threats by police to implicate protesters in false criminal cases, and videos purportedly depicting a police officer carrying an AK-47 during protests in Bihar.

Significantly, Chief Justice Kant observed that while the Supreme Court had laid down principles regulating police action and crowd control in several earlier decisions, the time had come to consolidate and strengthen those safeguards. Referring to the court's 2018 directions on police response during protests, he remarked, "In 2026, they have to be stronger."

The Bench also acknowledged the competing narratives placed before it. While taking note of allegations that journalists were assaulted, women protesters were molested, lawyers were beaten and pellet guns were used against demonstrators, it also referred to petitions filed by families of injured police personnel alleging attacks on officers during the protests.

“There are always uninvited guests who enter with their own agendas and then they become the host,” Chief Justice Kant observed, recognising that peaceful demonstrations can be infiltrated by violent elements. However, he emphasised that such allegations could not justify abandoning constitutional safeguards or dilute the need for accountability.

The court's interim directions mark one of the most significant judicial interventions on the right to protest in recent years. By protecting protesters from coercive action, directing the release of detained minors, preserving crucial evidence and signalling the framing of stronger nationwide protocols on police response, the Supreme Court has transformed litigation arising from the CJP protests into what could become a landmark constitutional exercise on balancing the fundamental right to peaceful protest with the state's obligation to maintain public order.