NEET Paper Leak Protest Violence: SC sets up 5-Member Enquiry Committee; Probe into harassment of Women Protestors to be prioritised

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: While considering this writ petition concerning inter alia the alleged excessive and disproportionate use of force by the police, paramilitary forces, and other security personnel against peaceful protestors assembled at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and at various other locations across the country in connection to NEET Examination 2026 protests, a three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, JJ., constituted a five-Member High Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) for an independent and impartial investigation into the incidents of violence.

The member of the newly constituted HPEC members are as follows:

Chairperson:

Justice R. Subhash Reddy, former Judge, Supreme Court of India

Members:

1. Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court

2. Justice Shalinder Kaur, former Judge of the Delhi High Court

3. Rishi Kumar Shukla, Former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation

4. Dr. L.R. Bishnoi, Retired Director General of Police, Meghalaya

The Court in its order dated 28 July 2026 had opined that a prima face case for an independent and impartial investigation and consequentially the need to constitute a HPEC was made out.

The Court clarified that the constitution of the HPEC shall in no way deter or debar the police authorities or other security forces from taking administrative or disciplinary action against such of their officers as may be found to be in contravention of the rules governing their conduct. The Court also requested the HPEC to complete its inquiry and deliberations at the earliest.

Background

The petitions were filed seeking the Court’s intervention in relation to several incidents of violence that occurred during protests led by students at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and other places in Delhi over the alleged leakage of the NEET 2026 question paper.

The petitioners alleged that the police deployed pellet guns against peaceful protestors, occasioning grievous and, in several instances, irreversible bodily injury. It was further submitted that acts of violence were perpetrated by police officials in plain clothes, thereby evading identification and accountability while inflicting harm upon the protestors; electric batons were used upon protestors; excessive and disproportionate use of force through indiscriminate lathi charges and the deployment of tear gas, often without adequate warning or provocation were done; threats were held out by the police to fabricate evidence and to plant incriminating material upon protestors and acts of violence were allegedly perpetrated against women and children present at such assemblies, marked by a particular callousness towards their safety and dignity.

Per contra, the respondents contended that certain anti-social elements with serious criminal antecedents indulged in acts of violence during the said protests, resulting in violent clashes with the police, in consequence whereof the police forces have sustained grievous injuries.

Also read: Supreme Court clarifies “criminal antecedents” in NEET 2026 protest violence case means “grave and heinous offences”

Court’s Assessment

Taking note of the rival submissions, the Court referred to its 28 July order and the interim directions given therein and subsequent clarification of “criminal antecedents” in its order dated 3 August 2026.

The Court emphasised on its intent to constitute a HPEC given that a prima face case for an independent and impartial investigation and consequentially the need to constitute a HPEC was established vide the submissions made by the petitioners and respondents.

Stating that an intense deliberation was made vis-a-vis the constitution of the HPEC and the members comprising it; the issues into which the HPEC ought to conduct an enquiry; the manner in which the HPEC could assist the Court, through periodical reports; and the logistics and modalities governing the functioning of the HPEC.

Constitution of the HPEC

Given the gravity of the contentions and the matter, the Court deemed it fit to constitute a five-Member HPEC. The Court stated that the HPEC has been constituted bearing in mind a wide variety of considerations, including the individual expertise and experience of each of its members, as well as the diversity of the Committee, among other factors.

Issues to be considered by the HPEC

The Court broadly segregated the issues emphasised by the petitioners and respondents that will merit analysis by the HPEC. The Court stated that the HPEC is also at liberty to consider any other issues incidental thereto, as it may so deem fit

Issues highlighted by the petitioners:

1. The use of excessive force and violence against protestors by police authorities and other agencies including the deployment of pellet guns, electric batons, lathi charges, and tear gas without adequate warning or proportionality, resulting in severe bodily harm and injuries

2. The question of ensuring a proportionate and measured police response during protests, public gatherings, and peaceful assemblies so as to strike an appropriate balance between the maintenance of public order and the constitutional right to peaceful dissent

3. The desirability of banning the use of metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile-action guns, having regard to the grave and, at times, irreversible bodily harm occasioned by their deployment against protestors

4. The necessity of ensuring that police and security personnel wear proper uniforms and visible nameplates at the time of effecting arrests or using force during crowd-control operations, so as to secure accountability and enable the identification of individual officers

5. An enquiry into the allegations pertaining to the monitoring and surveillance of protestors by police personnel, and the extent to which such measures, if undertaken, were consistent with the protestors’ constitutional rights to privacy and free assembly

6. The alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, molestation and/or any secondary victimisation directed against female protestors, which, given the gravity and sensitivity of the allegations, warrant a focused and expeditious enquiry

7. The provision of medical and other requisite support, including award of compensation, to victims of alleged police abuse, including the manner and adequacy of such support extended thus far

8. Regulation of the issuance of blanket prohibitory orders under Section 163, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, so as to prevent their use as a routine or pre-emptive measure that forecloses the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly rather than as a genuine, proportionate response to a real and imminent threat to public order

9. The establishment of strict constitutional thresholds and safeguards to prevent Section 152, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from being invoked as an instrument to stifle political dissent and peaceful protest, thereby ensuring that the provision remains confined to its intended purpose and is not permitted to operate as a chilling restraint upon constitutionally protected speech and assembly

Issues highlighted by the respondents

1. Alleged use of force and violence by protestors against police officials and other security personnel, which according to the respondents, has been understated in the narrative advanced by the petitioners and warrants an equally rigorous and unbiased examination

2. The damage occasioned to public property on account of the actions of the protestors during the course of the said demonstrations, including the destruction of and injury caused to government installations, vehicles, and other assets belonging to the State and to private citizens alike

3. The injuries sustained by the police forces in the course of discharging their duties, as well as the consequent mental and emotional trauma borne by their kith and kin merits due recognition and consideration on a par with the grievances raised by the petitioners

Manner in which the HPEC ought to deliberate on the aforementioned issues

1. The Court deemed it fit to clarify that the enquiry undertaken by the HPEC shall not be a one-time exercise. Rather, the Committee shall undertake a continuous and periodic assessment of the issues enumerated hereinabove and shall submit its interim findings periodically so as to enable the Court to take appropriate measures and issue such directions as may be warranted.

2. The Court recommended that HPEC address certain issues on a priority basis, foremost amongst which is the matter relating to the alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, and molestation of female protestors.

3. The HPEC may also assess the grievous harm and injury allegedly caused to protestors by police authorities and security personnel and investigate aspects such as the chain of command resulting in such excesses, those responsible for such actions and whether there were any breaches of any of the existing laws, rules or norms in exercising such force.

4. Additionally, the HPEC may also examine issues pertaining to the grant of interim compensation to those injured on either side, whether police personnel or protestors.

Having enumerated the manner in which HPEC will operate to investigate the pertinent issues, the Court also stated that broader constitutional questions arising herein shall be dealt with by the Court in due course, after hearing the contentions advanced by either side. “These are matters that call for a measure of judicial nuance and circumspection, and merit determination by this Court only upon a careful consideration of the submissions advanced before it.”

Additional Directions

The Court directed to appoint Ashima Mandla, Advocate-on-Record and Daksh Kadian, Advocate as nodal officers on behalf of the petitioners and Astha Singh, Advocate-on-Record as nodal officer on behalf of the respondents. This direction was given with a view to consolidate and streamline the process, as also to establish a clear and abiding conduit of communication between the Court, the HPEC, and all stakeholders concerned.

The Court directed the Police Authorities, Para-Military Forces, and other Investigating Agencies preserve all CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records, and PCR call logs pertaining to the student protests, furnish the entire record to the HPEC and extend their full cooperation.

[Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 280/2026, order dated 18-8-2026]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For Petitioner(s): 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. Priyendu Raghav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Meena, Adv. Mr. Vishal Kumar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Davinder Pal Kaur, Adv. Mr. Narendra Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Keshav Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Tilak Raj Passi, Adv. Ms. Nazish Fatima, Adv. Mrs. Maneesha Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Monika, Adv. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR 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. Khalid Ali, Adv. Mr. Aanand Kumar Vashistha, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Daksh Kadian, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, AOR Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv., Adv. Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, Adv. Mr. Tenzing Namgyal, Adv. Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Harsh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Smruthi Gangadharaiah, 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. Dr. Syed Rizwan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Lamba, Adv. Mr. Rajat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Dev Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Zahid Ali, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Ms. Vrinda Grover, Adv. Ms. Devika Tulsiani, Adv. Mr. Soutik Banerjee, AOR Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Adv. Ms. Ashima Mandla, AOR Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv. Ms. Mandakini Singh, Adv. Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Dev Nagar, Adv. Ms. Aadya Pandey, Adv. Ms. Deepali Dabas, Adv. Ms. Vanshika Tewari, Adv. Mr. B.D. Rao Kundan, Adv. Mr. Amaan Shreyas, Adv. Ms. Mannat Tipnis, Adv. Mr. Siddharth S Yadav, Adv. Mr. Aman Akhtar, Adv. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran K.r, AOR Mr. Anirudh K.p, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Ms. Anmol Gupta, Adv. Ms. Bhumika Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Adv. Mr. Ribhav Pande, Adv. Mr. Madhav Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Tanushree Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Alam, Adv. Mr. Sachin Hitkari, AOR Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ashima Mandla, AOR Ms. Mandakini Singh, Adv. Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Adv. Mr. Amaan Shreyas, Adv. Ms. Mannat Tipnis, Adv. Mr. Siddharth S Yadav, Adv. Mr. Aman Akhtar, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv. Ms. Aastha Singh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. S. D. Sanjay, Advocate General Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ekta Kundu, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Suryaprakash V.raju, A.S.G. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. S.D. Sanjay Bihar, Advocate General Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Harsh Mehla, Adv. Mr. Asit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mahipal Gautam, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Sushmita Pandey, Adv. Ms. Arunima Das, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Arun Hirulkar, Adv. Ms. Kunika Bansal, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Nishant Awana, AOR Ms. Rini Badoni, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kundu, Adv. Mr. Amogh Pandey, Adv Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Aadithya Aravindh, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vandana, Adv. Mr. Gautam Banrwal, Adv. Mr. Mohd Arafat Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohd Shafat Ahamad, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Manoj Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gupta Ganesh Subhash, Adv. Ms. Neha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mumtaz Jawed Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghuvamsy D., AOR Ms. Chamundeswari P, Adv. Ms. Yashika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Rawal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Riahika, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mittal, Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv. Ms. Cheryl D Souza, Adv. Ms. Somya Kumari, Adv. Mr. Huzaifa, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Ms. Niharika Rathi Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Rishav Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Mr. Pratul, Adv. Mr. Parimal Wagh, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashwant Singh, AOR Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Applicant-in-person, AOR Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR Mr. Shiyas K.R., Adv. Mr. Angad Gautam, Adv. Mr. Manik Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR Ms. Aarati Sah, Adv. Mr. Animesh Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Yachna Sharma, Adv. Ms. Arushi Chopra, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, AG Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, AAG Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. Kanishk Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Mr. Sashwat Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, DAG Ms. Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv. in Item 29 Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR

For Intervenor: Mr. Amit Rawal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rishika, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mittal, Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR