SC hints at retired judge-led SIT, orders no coercive action against student protesters
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it may constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a former apex court judge to probe allegations of police excesses as well as attacks on police personnel during the recent nationwide student protests over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, while directing that no coercive action be taken against protesters having no criminal antecedents.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed that the allegations placed before it prima facie warranted a fair and independent investigation and sought responses from the Union government and the state governments of Assam, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
“The allegations made by petitioners prima facie make out a case for an independent and fair probe. Such a probe will effectively address the allegations,” the CJI Kant-led Bench observed.
The apex court also directed the immediate release of all minors detained during the protests across different states and ordered that students arrested or detained solely for participating in the demonstrations be released if they have no criminal antecedents.
Clarifying that the protection would not extend to persons with criminal backgrounds, the CJI Kant-led Bench directed that no coercive steps be taken against student protesters having no criminal antecedents until further orders.
It also ordered preservation of all CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-worn camera footage, wireless communications, PCR logs and other electronic records relating to the protests. It further directed that the personal information and digital data of student protesters collected by police be preserved but not brought into the public domain for the time being.
During the hearing, the top court said the incidents required a thorough and transparent inquiry and indicated that a high-powered committee under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge may be constituted after considering the responses of the Centre and the state governments.
The CJI Kant-led Bench also observed that the existing protocol governing public protests may require modification. “These agitations in democracy are bound to be,” the apex court remarked, adding that an appropriate mechanism should be activated whenever such situations arise.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that the matter was not confined to Delhi but concerned police action against student protesters across the country.
Referring to videos allegedly showing police personnel without name tags indulging in violence, he urged the top court to order an independent probe under the supervision of a former Chief Justice of India. The senior counsel further claimed that despite the Supreme Court taking cognisance of the matter, a Bihar police officer had used an AK-47 rifle against students.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan referred to instances of alleged use of electric shock batons against protesters and videos purportedly showing a senior police officer threatening students with false narcotics cases if they returned to the protests.
Senior advocate Shadan Farasat submitted that the scale of violence in Bihar was more severe than in Delhi and said around 150 persons, mostly minors, continued to remain in custody despite the Bihar government’s announcement that criminal cases against protesters would be withdrawn.
Farasat also alleged that lawyers in Delhi were assaulted by police even after the crowd had dispersed.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted the case of Junaid Malik, a volunteer who allegedly supplied food to protesters, claiming that he was picked up by police and later abandoned in Mussoorie.
Senior advocate N. Hariharan suggested that the petitions pending before the Delhi High Court be transferred to the apex court and sought continuation of the High Court’s directions preserving electronic evidence.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government and Delhi Police, supported an independent probe, while highlighting that two sets of petitions were before the top court — one alleging police brutality against students and another concerning injuries suffered by police personnel.
“If students were attacked, it is a serious matter, and the government cannot take it lightly,” SG Mehta submitted, while adding that around 250 police personnel had also sustained injuries.
The Solicitor General said it was possible that anti-social elements had infiltrated the protests and that the students themselves may not have been responsible for the attacks on police personnel.
“As a State, we also cannot do anything that would demoralise the police force. Ultimately, there may be one version, another version, and then the truth. It is the truth that must emerge before this Court,” he submitted.
The CJI Kant-led Bench observed that it would also have to examine whether those responsible for attacks on police personnel were actually students participating in the demonstrations.
The matter has been posted for further hearing next week.
The apex court is hearing a batch of petitions seeking pan-India guidelines to safeguard the Constitutional right to peaceful protest in the wake of allegations of excessive police force during student demonstrations in Delhi and several other states over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
On Monday, the Supreme Court had observed that the right to peaceful and lawful protest is constitutionally protected and stressed that allegations of police excesses as well as violence against police personnel require an impartial examination.
It had also indicated that a uniform nationwide protocol may be necessary to regulate the handling of public protests while balancing the rights of demonstrators and law enforcement agencies.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had issued notice to the Centre and Delhi Police on a batch of PILs alleging excessive use of force during the July 20 ‘Sansad Chalo’ protest and directed preservation of CCTV footage, videography and other electronic records connected with the incident.