Supreme Court Issues Notice on NEET Protest Violence, Orders Release of Minors and Stays Coercive Action

The Supreme Court of India, on July 28, 2026, took up a batch of Public Interest Litigations alleging severe police excesses during the nationwide protests over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, ordered the immediate release of all detained minors, stayed coercive action against students, and directed all states to preserve electronic evidence relating to the protests. The Court also signalled that it may constitute an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the violence.

Background: The NEET 2026 Protests and Sansad Chalo March

The protests erupted after widespread allegations of paper leaks in the NEET-UG 2026 examination, with students and opposition parties demanding accountability from the National Testing Agency (NTA). The agitation began at Jantar Mantar in Delhi and quickly spread to Maharashtra, Bihar, Gujarat, Assam, West Bengal, and Kerala. On July 20, 2026, a "Sansad Chalo" march was organised, during which Delhi Police deployed lathi charges, tear gas, and pellet guns against the marching students. The PILs filed before the Supreme Court allege that the police response was grossly disproportionate and violated the fundamental rights of the protesters.

Allegations Before the Court

The petitions presented disturbing accounts of police action across multiple states. The allegations include: the use of pellet guns that caused grievous injuries, including one protester allegedly losing eyesight; lathis fitted with nails that resulted in permanent disabilities; a media person who was seriously assaulted while covering the protests; and violence committed by police personnel, some of whom were allegedly in civilian clothes. The petitioners argued that these actions violated Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution. The right to peaceful protest under Article 19(1)(b) was a central theme in the submissions.

The Supreme Court's Orders

The bench passed several significant interim directions. First, it directed all states to immediately release students below the age of 18 who were arrested or detained during the protests, provided they have no criminal antecedents. Second, the Court stayed all coercive action against students for the time being, providing breathing room while the matter is heard in detail. Third, the Court directed all concerned authorities to preserve electronic evidence, including CCTV footage, body camera recordings, and other documentation of the protest and the police response.

CJI Surya Kant on the Right to Peaceful Protest

Chief Justice Surya Kant made strong observations regarding the right to peaceful protest, noting that so long as a protest remains peaceful, mere agitation cannot justify a lathi charge. The CJI emphasised that the Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and that discipline is integral to democratic process. These observations reinforce the long-standing jurisprudence under Article 19(1)(b), which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, subject only to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) in the interests of public order or the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Possibility of an Independent SIT

The bench observed that if excesses were committed, they should be independently examined. The Centre and the concerned states have been directed to place their versions on record before the Court considers constituting an independent committee or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure a fair, transparent, and thorough probe into all incidents of violence during the protests. This is significant because an SIT, supervised by the Supreme Court, would remove any question of bias in the investigation, particularly where the police themselves are the accused.

Constitutional Framework: Articles 19 and 21

The case engages two fundamental rights that are central to democratic governance. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to live with dignity and the right against the use of excessive force by the state. The right to life under Article 21 has been expansively read to encompass bodily integrity and freedom from state violence.

The Detention of Minors: Legal Implications

The Court's order regarding detained minors carries particular legal weight. Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, a child in conflict with the law must be treated differently from an adult. Detaining minors in police custody without following the procedures mandated by the Act raises serious questions about compliance by local police forces. The Supreme Court's direction for their immediate release underscores that procedural safeguards for children cannot be bypassed, even during mass arrests in the context of public protests.

What Happens Next

The Centre and the concerned state governments must now file their responses detailing the measures taken during the protests and the justification for the force used. The Court has reserved its decision on whether to constitute an SIT and will take up the matter alongside a related petition seeking a nationwide ban on pellet guns for crowd control. The matter is expected to be heard alongside pellet gun petitions on August 3, 2026. The outcome will be closely watched for its potential to set new benchmarks on the use of force against peaceful protesters, the rights of student activists, and the accountability of law enforcement agencies.

Key Takeaways

1. The Supreme Court has ordered the immediate release of all minors detained during the NEET protests, provided they have no prior criminal record, reinforcing the protections of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.

2. All coercive action against student protesters has been stayed, providing interim protection while the Court examines the allegations of police excesses.

3. CJI Surya Kant has affirmed that the right to peaceful protest under Article 19(1)(b) cannot be curtailed merely because there is agitation; a lathi charge requires justification beyond the existence of a protest.

4. The Court is considering constituting a court-monitored SIT to investigate the protest violence, which would ensure independence from the police agencies that are themselves accused of excesses.

5. Students who were arrested during the protests and detained may explore legal remedies including habeas corpus petitions and claims for victim compensation under BNSS 2023 if they suffered injuries due to excessive force.

6. All electronic evidence of the protests, including CCTV and body camera footage, must be preserved by law enforcement authorities, a critical order for ensuring accountability.

7. The case is being heard alongside the ongoing controversy over the NEET paper leaks, and the Telegram ban ahead of the NEET re-examination, reflecting the wide-ranging legal fallout from the examination crisis.