Supreme Court to Hear Pleas on Police Excesses Against Students During NEET Paper Leak Protests

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two separate petitions alleging excessive police force against students protesting the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana will take up the matter, which arises out of the events surrounding the "Sansad Chalo" march on July 20, 2026. The petitions seek guidelines to regulate police action during public protests, an independent investigation into the use of force, and safeguards against the deployment of plainclothes police officers during demonstrations.

Background of the NEET Paper Leak Controversy

The NEET-UG 2026 examination has been mired in controversy following allegations that the question paper was leaked before the examination date. The alleged leak triggered widespread anger among students and aspirants, who accused the authorities of compromising the integrity of one of India's most competitive entrance examinations. Several student groups and political organisations called for protests demanding accountability and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

The "Sansad Chalo" march on July 20, 2026, organised by the Cockroach Janta Party, saw thousands of students attempt to march towards Parliament in New Delhi. Security forces deployed lathi charges and tear gas to disperse the crowds, leading to reports of injuries among protesters. Videos and images of the police action circulated widely on social media, drawing condemnation from opposition parties, civil society groups, and student bodies across the country.

The Petitions Before the Supreme Court

Two separate petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the police action during the July 20 protests. The petitioners allege that the use of lathi charges and tear gas against peacefully protesting students constituted a disproportionate and excessive use of force that violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (right to assemble peaceably and without arms) of the Constitution of India.

The petitions seek several forms of relief. First, they demand the framing of comprehensive guidelines to regulate police conduct during public protests, similar to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in other contexts relating to the use of force by law enforcement. Second, the petitioners seek an independent probe into the events of July 20, arguing that a police investigation into its own conduct would not inspire public confidence. Third, the petitions raise concerns about the deployment of plainclothes police officers during the protests, alleging that unidentified officers were involved in the use of force, making accountability difficult.

The CJI's Clarification on Earlier Reports

The hearing comes after CJI Surya Kant publicly addressed media reports that had claimed he refused an urgent hearing on a petition challenging the police action. The CJI termed these reports "reckless," clarifying that what had been received by the Court was merely a representation and not a properly filed writ petition. CJI Surya Kant emphasised that the Supreme Court would hear every genuine grievance and ensure justice within the framework of the law.

This clarification was significant because it distinguished between informal representations and formal petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Delhi High Court has also been approached separately through a PIL seeking an NIA probe into the events of July 20, indicating that the police action has generated parallel proceedings in multiple courts.

Constitutional Framework: The Right to Protest

The right to protest is a well-established fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, derived from the combined reading of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and 19(3) in the interests of sovereignty, security of the state, public order, and other specified grounds. The Supreme Court has, in several prior decisions, emphasised that while the state has the authority to regulate protests in the interest of public order, the use of force must be proportionate and necessary. Courts have consistently examined the constitutional validity of state actions that impinge on fundamental rights.

The petitioners' demand for comprehensive guidelines echoes previous judicial interventions where the Supreme Court has laid down standards for police conduct, including the landmark guidelines in Prakash Singh v. Union of India on police reforms. The current petitions argue that existing frameworks are inadequate to address the specific challenges posed by large-scale student protests, particularly in the context of social media-driven mobilisation. Questions of arrest safeguards and procedural protections remain central to the debate over police accountability during public protests.

Broader Implications

The case raises broader questions about the balance between the state's duty to maintain public order and the citizen's right to peaceful protest. If the Supreme Court issues guidelines on police conduct during protests, it could establish precedent-setting standards for law enforcement agencies across the country. The case also touches on issues of police accountability, transparency in the use of force, and the rights of young citizens to participate in democratic processes.

Key Takeaways

1. The Supreme Court will hear two petitions alleging excessive police force against students protesting the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, before a bench led by CJI Surya Kant.

2. The petitions arise from the "Sansad Chalo" march on July 20, 2026, during which security forces used lathi charges and tear gas against protesters.

3. Relief sought includes comprehensive guidelines for police conduct during protests, an independent probe, and safeguards against plainclothes police deployment.

4. CJI Surya Kant has clarified that earlier media reports claiming he refused an urgent hearing were inaccurate, noting that no formal petition had been filed at that time.

5. The case engages fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3).