IIT Patna Student Moves Supreme Court Seeking Uniform Crowd-Control Protocol, Mandatory Police Identification After ‘Sansad Chalo’ Protest

August 1, 2026: An IIT Patna student who claims to have suffered serious injuries during the police action at the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest in New Delhi has approached the Supreme Court seeking a uniform crowd-control protocol across the country and mandatory identification of police personnel deployed during public demonstrations.

The intervention application has been filed by Toshiwa Yadav through Advocate Neha Rathi in the pending case Himanshu v. Union of India & Ors. The applicant seeks to assist the Supreme Court in adjudicating allegations of excessive and disproportionate use of force by the Delhi Police and other law enforcement agencies against students protesting over the NEET-UG 2026 controversy.

According to the plea, Yadav participated in the July 20 protest, during which students marched towards Parliament demanding the resignation of the Union Education Minister. She alleges that while returning from the protest site, she was assaulted by police personnel who were in uniform but were not displaying name plates or identification badges. The applicant claims she sustained a deep head injury that required stitches and immediate medical treatment.

The intervention application alleges that police used excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, leaving several students with grievous injuries, while some reportedly lost consciousness. It contends that the nature and extent of the force used raise serious concerns over the arbitrary and disproportionate exercise of State power against citizens exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

The plea further alleges that individuals in plain clothes and police personnel without identification badges also participated in the assault. It seeks an independent inquiry into the identity, authority, and role of every person involved in the alleged use of force. The application also refers to allegations that lathis fitted with nails, electrified barricades, pellet guns, and shock batons were used during the protest. It additionally cites reports alleging that women protesters were assaulted, including on their private parts, and that an Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police slapped a woman bystander.

The application argues that the involvement of unidentified persons in the use of coercive force raises serious questions of transparency, accountability, and institutional responsibility. It submits that no individual responsible for the alleged assault should escape accountability merely because of the absence of proper identification.

Referring to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant contends that although police have statutory authority to disperse unlawful assemblies, such powers must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional principles of legality, necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality.

To prevent similar incidents in the future, the plea proposes several safeguards, including the adoption of a uniform and publicly accessible Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for crowd control, mandatory display of name plates and identification numbers by police personnel, compulsory documentation of every instance of use of force, immediate medical treatment for injured persons, and periodic training of police personnel on constitutional principles governing crowd management.

The applicant has sought permission to intervene in the pending writ petition and assist the Supreme Court in deciding the issues raised in the matter.

Last week, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Union Government, the Delhi Government, and several State Governments on petitions challenging the police action against student protesters. The Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the students, ordered the preservation of CCTV footage and official records, and listed the matter for hearing on August 3. The Supreme Court is also hearing a separate petition filed by persons who allegedly sustained pellet gun injuries during the protest.