Supreme Court Protects NEET 2026 Protesters, Orders Release of Detained Minors; SIT Probe Into Police Excesses Likely

July 28, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim protection to students who participated in nationwide protests over the alleged NEET 2026 paper leak and examination irregularities, directing that no coercive action be taken against those who have no criminal antecedents. The Court also ordered the immediate release of all minors arrested or detained during the protests, while making it clear that the protection would not apply to individuals with criminal backgrounds.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana observed that the material placed before it disclosed a prima facie case warranting an independent and fair investigation into allegations of excessive police force against protesters as well as attacks on police personnel. The Bench noted that the rival claims made by the petitioners and law enforcement authorities could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution and therefore required an impartial fact-finding exercise.

To ensure the integrity of the proposed investigation, the Court directed authorities to preserve all CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-worn camera footage, wireless communication records, Police Control Room (PCR) logs and all other electronic and documentary evidence connected with the protests.

The Bench also ordered that all digital data collected by law enforcement agencies concerning the protesters must be preserved but should not be disclosed or placed in the public domain until further orders. It specifically restrained authorities from publishing the personal information or digital data of protesters.

The petitions before the Court alleged violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, claiming that law enforcement agencies used indiscriminate and excessive force during demonstrations triggered by the NEET 2026 paper leak controversy. The Court took note of allegations that pellet guns, rubber bullets, tear gas, electric batons and nail-fitted lathis were used against protesters, resulting in serious injuries, including the alleged loss of eyesight of a student and permanent disabilities suffered by others. The petitions also alleged assaults on media personnel and claimed that police officials in plain clothes participated in crowd-control operations.

At the same time, the Court recorded submissions made on behalf of injured police personnel that anti-social elements had infiltrated the protests, resorted to stone-pelting and injured officers performing official duties. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench that nearly 250 police personnel had suffered injuries and argued that criminal elements, rather than students, were responsible for the violence against the police.

Observing that peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected democratic right, the Bench said the demonstrations had initially been intended to remain peaceful but noted that allegations from both sides required an impartial inquiry. The Court also observed that existing judicial principles governing police action during public demonstrations, including crowd management and the use of force, may require reconsideration and consolidation into a comprehensive nationwide protocol suited to present-day circumstances.

The Bench indicated that it was inclined to constitute an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate allegations of police excesses and violence during the nationwide protests. It stated that the proposed investigation would establish the sequence of events, determine accountability and identify those responsible, irrespective of whether they belonged to the police or the protesters.

Before issuing formal directions for the constitution of the SIT, the Court granted the Union Government, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the States of Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam, West Bengal, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh an opportunity to file their responses. Notices were issued to the respective Chief Secretaries, while the concerned Advocates General and Standing Counsel were requested to assist the Court.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the controversy extended beyond Delhi and involved incidents in several States. He submitted that no prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was in force at Jantar Mantar during the protest and alleged that police failed to follow established crowd-control principles, including the doctrine of graduated use of force. He also urged the Court to address concerns over facial-recognition technology and AI-based surveillance systems allegedly used to identify protesters.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan referred to allegations that police personnel threatened protesters with false criminal cases, used electric batons and assaulted women demonstrators. He submitted that the investigation should remain independent, transparent and based solely on verified facts while urging the Court to strengthen earlier judicial guidelines governing police action during public protests.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat highlighted the situation in Bihar, submitting that despite the State Government’s decision to withdraw criminal cases, around 150 persons, including several minors, remained in custody and had allegedly not been produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the statutory period.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan referred to the alleged unlawful detention of volunteer Junaid Malik and questioned how a truck carrying stones entered the protest area despite heavy police deployment. The Court observed that such allegations further underscored the need for an independent inquiry.

Appearing for the Union Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the constitution of an independent investigation, stating that allegations of police excesses, if proved, were serious and required appropriate action. He also maintained that the inquiry should equally examine allegations of violence against police personnel so that the truth could emerge through a fair and impartial process.

The proceedings arose from a batch of writ petitions under Article 32 seeking nationwide guidelines on police action during public demonstrations. The lead petition, filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi through Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi, seeks an independent probe into the police action during the July 20 protest at Jantar Mantar, regulation of crowd-control measures, prohibition on deploying plainclothes police personnel for crowd-management duties and judicial guidelines governing the exercise of powers under Section 163 of the BNSS. Another petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha seeks registration of FIRs over allegations of police brutality, constitution of State-level SITs under judicial supervision and preservation of digital evidence relating to the protests.

The matter has been listed for further hearing next week, when the Supreme Court is expected to consider the responses of the Union Government and the concerned States before deciding on the formal constitution of the Special Investigation Team.