Delhi High Court Agrees to Hear PIL Seeking NIA Probe Into July 20 Sansad Chalo NEET Protest

The Delhi High Court on Thursday, July 23, 2026, agreed to hear on Friday, July 24, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe into the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" protest organised over the alleged NEET paper leak. The PIL, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, former Vice-President of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, through advocates Sneh Vardhan and Pratibha Sinha, alleges that the protest was part of a larger conspiracy involving foreign-funded organisations and political actors.

The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. The bench agreed to list the matter for hearing on Friday, July 24, 2026.

What Happened on July 20

On July 20, 2026, thousands of demonstrators gathered at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi for a protest styled as "Sansad Chalo" (March to Parliament). The demonstration was organised in the name of students demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG examination, including alleged paper leaks. The protest was led by the group calling itself "Cockroach Janta Party" (CJP), which had been organising agitations over the NEET issue for over 40 days leading up to the march.

According to the PIL and media reports, the march witnessed significant violence, including obstruction of public movement, stone-pelting, attacks on journalists covering the event, injuries to police personnel, damage to public and private property, and attempts to breach the security perimeter around Parliament House. Delhi Police registered multiple FIRs in connection with the incident.

Allegations in the PIL

The petition makes several serious allegations. It claims that the protest, projected as a student-led demonstration, was in reality orchestrated by political parties and funded through foreign channels. The PIL names leaders and members of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Samajwadi Party, and Azad Samaj Party as having participated in and influenced the demonstration, thereby converting it from a student agitation into a political one.

The petitioner alleges that the scale and coordination of the violence on July 20 indicate a larger conspiracy that goes beyond a spontaneous student protest. The PIL asserts that the incident warrants investigation by a specialised agency such as the NIA, rather than the Delhi Police, to uncover the alleged funding networks and organisational links behind the march.

Relief Sought Before the Court

The PIL seeks multiple reliefs from the Delhi High Court. First, it requests a court-monitored investigation by the NIA into the July 20 incident and its alleged organisational and financial backing. Second, it seeks the transfer of all FIRs registered by the Delhi Police in connection with the incident to the NIA or another specialised investigating agency. Third, the petition asks for action against all individuals and organisations responsible for the alleged violence, property damage, and disruption of public order.

Legal Framework for NIA Investigations

The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, empowers the Central Government to constitute a special agency for the investigation and prosecution of offences affecting the sovereignty, security, and integrity of India. Under Section 6 of the NIA Act, the Central Government may direct the NIA to investigate a scheduled offence if it is satisfied that such investigation is required. The Delhi High Court PIL jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution allows it to issue directions for the investigation of matters involving larger public interest.

However, it is important to note that courts have generally been cautious about directing NIA investigations through PIL proceedings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the power to order investigation by a specialised agency should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where the court is convinced that a fair investigation is not possible by the ordinary investigating agency.

Right to Protest and Its Constitutional Limits

The right to protest is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably without arms. However, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), which permit the State to impose limits in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, and prevention of incitement to an offence. The Bombay High Court, in a recent ruling on the right to protest as a fundamental right, reiterated that while protest is protected, it must remain within lawful boundaries.

When a protest turns violent and results in attacks on persons, damage to property, and disruption of essential services, criminal liability may attach under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. Section 189 of BNS deals with unlawful assembly, while Section 191 covers rioting. Section 324 addresses mischief causing damage, and Section 132 covers assault on public servants.

NEET Controversy and Student Protests

The NEET paper leak controversy has been a major issue in Indian education policy for several years. Allegations of paper leaks and irregularities in the conduct of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test have triggered multiple rounds of student protests and judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has dealt with several petitions challenging the conduct and results of NEET examinations. The current round of protests, which intensified following the death of a student named Riya Thapa, has been among the most sustained, with evidence-related proceedings in other protest cases drawing parallel judicial scrutiny.

What Happens Next

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the PIL on July 24, 2026. The outcome of this hearing will determine whether the court issues notice to the Central Government, Delhi Police, and the NIA, or disposes of the matter at the admission stage. If the court admits the PIL, it could potentially direct an investigation by the NIA or another agency, though such an order would be unusual at this early stage.

The case raises important questions about the intersection of the right to protest, criminal liability for violent demonstrations, and the circumstances under which specialised investigation agencies should be deployed. It also touches on the broader debate about foreign funding of domestic protests and the role of political actors in student-led movements.

Related Reading

Shiv Sena UBT Moves Supreme Court Against Lok Sabha Speaker Approving Merger of Six MPs with Shinde Sena

Defamation vs. Privacy Rights: Supreme Court Balancing Act Under Article 21

Key Takeaways

1. The Delhi High Court has agreed to hear on July 24, 2026, a PIL seeking an NIA probe into the July 20 Sansad Chalo protest over the NEET paper leak controversy.

2. The PIL alleges foreign funding, political involvement by AAP, Samajwadi Party, and Azad Samaj Party, and a larger conspiracy behind the violence during the march.

3. The petition seeks transfer of all Delhi Police FIRs to the NIA and court-monitored investigation into the alleged funding and organisational networks.

4. The case involves a tension between the constitutional right to protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) and criminal liability under BNS provisions for violence during demonstrations.

5. The outcome of Friday hearing will determine whether the court admits the PIL or disposes of it at the threshold stage.