The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed authorities not to take any coercive action against students who participated in protests over alleged examination irregularities and ordered the immediate release of all children below the age of 18 who were detained during the demonstrations.
The Court also directed authorities to preserve all CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-worn camera footage, wireless communication records and police control room call logs related to the protests, observing that the material would be crucial for any future investigation.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and J.V. Mohana, said the allegations placed before it disclosed a prima facie case warranting a fair, transparent and independent inquiry into the alleged use of excessive force by police personnel.
The Bench issued notices to the Chief Secretaries of Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, seeking detailed responses on incidents related to the protests and the status of criminal cases registered in connection with them.
The Court said it would decide the composition of a proposed independent inquiry body—whether a Special Investigation Team (SIT), commission or committee—after considering the responses of the Centre and the state governments.
Court Examines Allegations of Excessive Force
The petitions before the Court seek action against police personnel and members of the Central Armed Police Forces over the alleged use of excessive force during student demonstrations against examination paper leaks and irregularities in competitive examinations, including NEET.
The Bench recorded allegations that security personnel used lathis, pellet guns, rubber pellets, electric batons and tear gas to disperse peaceful demonstrators.
The Court also noted claims that one student allegedly lost eyesight after being struck by pellets, while several others reportedly sustained serious injuries and permanent disabilities.
It further took note of allegations that a media professional was assaulted and that some acts of violence were allegedly committed by police personnel in civilian clothes.
“The allegations disclose a prima facie case for an independent inquiry,” the Chief Justice observed, adding that the investigation must also examine injuries suffered by police personnel.
Centre Supports Independent Probe
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Centre had no objection to an independent investigation.
He, however, submitted that hardened criminals and anti-social elements had infiltrated the protests and allegedly injured more than 200 police personnel.
The Court observed that the proposed investigation would have to determine whether the attacks on police personnel were committed by students or by outsiders who had infiltrated the demonstrations.
“In a nutshell, I am with the students. I do not think students perpetrated a crime. If they have suffered, the perpetrators must be brought to book,” Mehta told the Bench.
He sought time to place the Centre’s response on record and suggested that the concerned states also be directed to file their versions.
Emphasising the need for accountability, the Chief Justice remarked, “There has to be a completely independent probe. Whoever has committed excess, law will take its course. A probe is meaningless if no responsibility is fixed.”
Peaceful Protest Must Not Be Discredited
The Court clarified that it had decided to hear the petitions despite related proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court because similar allegations had emerged from multiple states.
The Bench described the demonstrations as peaceful protests by students exercising their constitutional rights.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi cautioned against allowing the actions of outsiders to undermine the legitimacy of a peaceful movement.
“There is always a danger of discrediting a peaceful movement,” he observed.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the petitioners, sought the constitution of an SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, arguing that accountability should extend to senior police officials.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan also proposed the names of two former Chief Justices of India to head the inquiry. The Bench deferred any decision on the composition of the panel until after receiving responses from the Centre and the states.
Five Interim Directions Issued
Pending further consideration, the Supreme Court issued five interim directions.
The Court ordered the preservation of all CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-camera footage, wireless communication records and police control room call logs related to the protests.
It also directed police authorities to preserve all digital information collected from protesters and ensure that such material is not disclosed publicly.
Authorities were restrained from publishing the personal details or identities of protesters.
The Bench further directed that no coercive action be taken against protesting students, while clarifying that the protection would not extend to individuals with criminal antecedents.
All states were also ordered to release children below the age of 18 who had been arrested during the protests.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat informed the Court that more than 150 minors were still in custody in Bihar despite the state government’s reported decision to withdraw cases. He claimed that one of the detained children was only 13 years old.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan submitted that the record contained documented allegations involving pellet guns, electric shock weapons, tear gas, lathi-charge and violence against women, children and journalists. He also sought safeguards against the misuse or public disclosure of digital data collected from protesters.
Court Signals Need for Updated Crowd-Control Guidelines
The Supreme Court observed that disputed questions of fact would have to be examined scientifically through videos, CCTV footage, photographs and other electronic evidence collected during the investigation.
The Bench also indicated that existing judicial guidelines governing crowd control and the use of force during public demonstrations may require revision.
“In a democracy, agitations are bound to be there,” the Chief Justice observed, calling for clearer protocols on the use of tear gas, pellet guns, electric batons and other crowd-control measures.
Justice Bagchi added that providing police personnel with adequate protective equipment could reduce the need for offensive methods.
“Police must have protective gear. It is more important than offensive gear,” he said.
The Court will decide the composition of the independent inquiry body after receiving responses from the Centre and the six state governments.
The petitions relate to police action during student protests over alleged paper leaks and irregularities in competitive examinations, including NEET. The demonstrations intensified in Delhi on July 20, when protesters attempted to march towards Parliament.
While protest organisers have alleged that students, volunteers, lawyers and journalists were assaulted during and after the demonstrations, Delhi Police has maintained that force was used only after barricades were breached, public property was damaged and security personnel came under attack.
