Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Supreme Court: In connected petitions pertaining to the students’ protest against NEET Paper Leak, the three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, JJ., held that there was a prima facie case for an independent and impartial investigation into the incidents of violence; notice was issued to States of Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Kerala.
The Court, as an interim measure, directed that:
-
all CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records, and PCR lodge collections related to the students’ protest be preserved;
-
personal information and digital data of the protestors, collected during the students’ protests, are preserved and are not disclosed to the public domain for the time being;
-
public data/details of the protestors, especially students, are not to be published by the respondents;
-
States may proceed with the investigation of the FIRs registered; however, no coercive measures shall be taken against the protesting students, except persons with criminal antecedents;
-
all States were hereby instructed to release children under the age of 18, who were reported to be arrested or detained in connection with the ongoing protests and who do not possess any criminal antecedents.
Background
The petitions were filed seeking the Court’s intervention in relation to several incidents of violence that occurred during protests led predominantly by students at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and other places in Delhi over the alleged leakage of the NEET 2026 question paper. According to the petitions, the disturbances subsequently spread to Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Kerala. The petitioners alleged that the police action violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Also Read: Dharmendra Pradhan Resigns as Education Minister; Pralhad Joshi Takes Charge | SCC Times
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioners placed on record several instances alleging indiscriminate and excessive use of force by the Delhi Police, including lathi charge, deployment of pellet guns and rubber bullets, use of tear gas, electronic batons and nail-embedded lathis. It was alleged that the use of force resulted in serious injuries to several protestors, including a student who allegedly lost his eyesight after being hit by pellets, injuries to a woman due to rubber bullets, permanent and life-threatening injuries caused by nail-embedded lathis, and assault on a member of the media. It was also alleged that some of the acts of violence were perpetrated by police personnel in both uniform and civilian clothes.
Respondents’ Contentions
The Court also took note of the opposing version placed by counsel appearing for injured police personnel and their family members. According to them, protestors and certain anti-social elements who had entered the protest site resorted to stone pelting and other acts of violence, causing multiple serious injuries to police personnel while they were performing their duties. The Court noted that photographs, video recordings and other material in support of these allegations had also been placed on record.
On behalf of the Union of India and the NCT of Delhi, the Solicitor General submitted that they had no objection to an independent and fair probe into the incidents of violence, as proposed by the Court. However, he categorically denied the allegations of police excesses and contended that hardened criminals and other undesirable elements had infiltrated the protest site and attacked police personnel, resulting in serious injuries to more than 280 officers.
Court’s Observations
Taking note of the rival versions, the Court observed that the allegations made by the petitioners, prima facie, disclosed a compelling case for an independent and impartial investigation into the incidents of violence. It further observed that such an investigation would also adequately address the allegations made on behalf of the injured police personnel and the concerns raised by the Solicitor General.
At the same time, the Court considered it appropriate, in the interests of justice, to grant the Union of India and the NCT of Delhi an opportunity to place their respective versions on record by filing affidavits along with the relevant material before passing any order based on its tentative opinion. The Court also found it necessary to extend a similar opportunity to the States where comparable incidents of violence had occurred, noting that the proposed investigation would encompass those incidents as well.
Court’s Order
Accordingly, the Court issued notice to the Chief Secretaries of Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Kerala, directing their respective Advocate Generals or Standing Counsel to appear through video conferencing on the next date of hearing. The Court also permitted dasti service.
Pending further consideration of the matter, the Court issued a series of interim directions. The Court directed the authorities to preserve all CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records and PCR lodge collections relating to the students’ protests. The Court also directed that the personal information and digital data collected from the protestors during the protests be preserved and not disclosed to the public domain. The Court further restrained the respondents from publishing any personal details of the protestors, particularly students.
The Court clarified that while the NCT of Delhi and the other States were at liberty to continue the investigation into the FIRs registered in connection with the protests, no coercive measures shall be taken against the protesting students. The Court, however, clarified that such protection would not extend to persons having criminal antecedents.
The Court further directed all States to release children below 18 years of age who had been arrested or detained in connection with the ongoing protests and who did not have any criminal antecedents. The Court observed that, where required, such children may be released on the execution of a simple bond by themselves or their family members.
The matter was directed to be listed for further consideration on 3 August 2026.
Also Read: Lok Sabha Passes Public Examinations Amendment Bill, 2026 | SCC Times
[Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, SLP (Crl.) No. 280 of 2025, ordered on 28-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Misra, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Naman Shresta, Adv. Ms. Pooja Shilpkar, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Smruthi Gangadharaiah, Adv. Mr. Samprity Kar, Adv. Mr. Priyendu Raghav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thalour, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Kumar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mohd Shahzad Ansari, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Saurav S., Adv. Mr. Anurag Yadav, Adv. Ms. T. Geetha, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, AOR Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, Adv. Mr. Daksh Kadian, Adv. Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Tahira Kathpalia, Adv. Mr. Harsh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Mallika Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Tenzing Namgyal, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Smruthi Gowda, Adv. Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv. Mr. Shaishir Divatia, Adv. Ms. Aadya Khanna, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Mridul Godha, Adv. Ms. Ankita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rithwik Narayanan, Adv. Ms. Sarah Ayreen Mir, Adv. Mr. Gladson Rodrigues, Adv. Mr. Narendra Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Keshav Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Nazish Fatima, Adv. Mrs. Monika, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ashima Mandla, AOR Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv. Ms. Mandakini Singh, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Tewari, Adv. Mr. Dev Nagar, Adv. Ms. Aadya Pandey, Adv. 2 Ms. Deepali Dabas, Adv. Mr. B.D. Rao Kundan, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Smruthi Gangadhar, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, AOR Ms. Nazmeen Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshit Anamd, Adv.
For the respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv. Ms. Somya Kumari, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rishav Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Mr. Pratul, Adv. Mr. Parimal Wagh, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Venkata R. Vamsi, Adv. Ms. Chamundeswari P., Adv. Ms. Yashika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, AOR
