Peaceful protest cannot justify police excess, uniform protocol needed: SC
Advertisement
New Delhi, July 27 : The Supreme Court on Monday said the Constitutional right to peaceful protest must be protected and stressed that allegations of police excesses as well as violence against security personnel during demonstrations require an impartial examination, while indicating that a uniform nationwide protocol may be needed to govern the handling of public protests.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI), Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, hearing a batch of petitions arising out of the recent nationwide student protests over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, said that merely because there is an agitation cannot justify the use of excessive force by police, while at the same time stressing that attacks on police personnel also cannot be overlooked.
"The right to peaceful, lawful protest is absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution. So long as it is peaceful agitation, merely because there is agitation, there can't be (police excess)," the CJI-led Bench observed.
The apex court added that if any excess has been committed, it should be independently examined and clarified that the issue was not confined to Delhi alone.
"If there is excess committed, it should be independently examined. It's not only a case of Delhi. Uniformity in protocol is required. Merely because there is agitation, doesn't mean lathi-charge. Discipline is integral to the democratic process," the CJI Kant-led Bench observed.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi remarked that injuries suffered by both protesters and police personnel were matters of equal concern.
"Injury to an individual, be it to policemen or protesters, is of equal concern. We may call upon the State to explain why adequate protective gear was not provided to police to handle such situations," Justice Bagchi observed.
The top court also said there should be a protocol to facilitate peaceful demonstrations while enabling authorities to deal with anti-social elements, if any.
"There should be a protocol in place. There should be proper space and no restriction. But if there are some anti-social elements, that can be taken care of. This is not a question of Delhi only. Uniformity of protocol is needed. Just because there is agitation does not mean there is lathi-charge. Self-evolved discipline is essential to the democratic process," the Bench said.
Appearing for one of the petitioners, advocate-on-record Fauzia Shakil informed the CJI Kant-led Bench that a fresh writ petition had been filed on behalf of Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha containing comprehensive material, including allegations relating to the recent police firing in Bihar.
"There are two petitions dealing with the violence that took place across the country on the students' protest," senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted, urging that all matters be heard together as allegations of police excesses were continuing.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh also pressed for pan-India directions, contending that incidents were not confined to Delhi and that an all-India framework was required.
Another counsel, appearing for families of injured police personnel, sought permission to participate in the proceedings, alleging that several policemen had been brutally assaulted during the protests.
Responding to the rival submissions, the CJI Kant-led Bench said that while peaceful protest is a Constitutional right, allegations of violence by protesters also required scrutiny.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, submitted that the Centre would assist the apex court "dispassionately" and suggested that all connected petitions be heard together.
Accepting the suggestion, the CJI-led Bench directed that all pending petitions be listed together on Tuesday for further hearing.
The matter relates to allegations of excessive use of force against students participating in protests across the country over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and related examination issues.
Earlier, CJI Kant had clarified that the Supreme Court had never declined to hear the issue but had merely refused to entertain a one-page representation that had not been instituted as a proper writ petition.
Refuting media reports, the CJI had explained that only a one-page representation had been submitted at the time and not a duly filed petition.
"The Supreme Court can never deny hearing of any case," he had said, adding that once properly instituted petitions were filed, the top court agreed to list them.
Last week, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police on a batch of PILs claiming excessive use of force by police during the protest and directed preservation of CCTV footage, videography and other relevant records connected with the July 20 'Sansad Chalo' march organised over the NEET paper leak.
Observing that the allegations did not relate to isolated incidents for which individual victims could simply be relegated to filing separate complaints, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia sought responses from the authorities within four weeks and directed preservation of all relevant electronic records, including CCTV footage and videography, in accordance with the standard operating procedures issued by the police.
During the hearing before the Delhi High Court, senior advocates N. Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Vikas Singh, appearing for different petitioners, alleged that students exercising their Constitutional right to protest were subjected to disproportionate force, including lathi-charge, use of tear gas and other coercive measures, and sought registration of FIRs, preservation of electronic evidence and an independent probe.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, opposed the PILs, contending that prohibitory orders were in force, the crowd had turned violent, police personnel were injured and public property was damaged.
The Centre’s law officer argued that the petitions were based largely on social media videos and that those alleging assault could avail statutory remedies instead of invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
Rejecting the contention that every affected individual should be relegated to filing separate complaints, the Delhi High Court had observed that if the allegations pertained to a larger incident involving police action during a public protest, they could not be brushed aside merely on that ground. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on September 11.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI), Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, hearing a batch of petitions arising out of the recent nationwide student protests over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, said that merely because there is an agitation cannot justify the use of excessive force by police, while at the same time stressing that attacks on police personnel also cannot be overlooked.
"The right to peaceful, lawful protest is absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution. So long as it is peaceful agitation, merely because there is agitation, there can't be (police excess)," the CJI-led Bench observed.
The apex court added that if any excess has been committed, it should be independently examined and clarified that the issue was not confined to Delhi alone.
"If there is excess committed, it should be independently examined. It's not only a case of Delhi. Uniformity in protocol is required. Merely because there is agitation, doesn't mean lathi-charge. Discipline is integral to the democratic process," the CJI Kant-led Bench observed.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi remarked that injuries suffered by both protesters and police personnel were matters of equal concern.
"Injury to an individual, be it to policemen or protesters, is of equal concern. We may call upon the State to explain why adequate protective gear was not provided to police to handle such situations," Justice Bagchi observed.
The top court also said there should be a protocol to facilitate peaceful demonstrations while enabling authorities to deal with anti-social elements, if any.
"There should be a protocol in place. There should be proper space and no restriction. But if there are some anti-social elements, that can be taken care of. This is not a question of Delhi only. Uniformity of protocol is needed. Just because there is agitation does not mean there is lathi-charge. Self-evolved discipline is essential to the democratic process," the Bench said.
Appearing for one of the petitioners, advocate-on-record Fauzia Shakil informed the CJI Kant-led Bench that a fresh writ petition had been filed on behalf of Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha containing comprehensive material, including allegations relating to the recent police firing in Bihar.
"There are two petitions dealing with the violence that took place across the country on the students' protest," senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted, urging that all matters be heard together as allegations of police excesses were continuing.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh also pressed for pan-India directions, contending that incidents were not confined to Delhi and that an all-India framework was required.
Another counsel, appearing for families of injured police personnel, sought permission to participate in the proceedings, alleging that several policemen had been brutally assaulted during the protests.
Responding to the rival submissions, the CJI Kant-led Bench said that while peaceful protest is a Constitutional right, allegations of violence by protesters also required scrutiny.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, submitted that the Centre would assist the apex court "dispassionately" and suggested that all connected petitions be heard together.
Accepting the suggestion, the CJI-led Bench directed that all pending petitions be listed together on Tuesday for further hearing.
The matter relates to allegations of excessive use of force against students participating in protests across the country over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and related examination issues.
Earlier, CJI Kant had clarified that the Supreme Court had never declined to hear the issue but had merely refused to entertain a one-page representation that had not been instituted as a proper writ petition.
Refuting media reports, the CJI had explained that only a one-page representation had been submitted at the time and not a duly filed petition.
"The Supreme Court can never deny hearing of any case," he had said, adding that once properly instituted petitions were filed, the top court agreed to list them.
Last week, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police on a batch of PILs claiming excessive use of force by police during the protest and directed preservation of CCTV footage, videography and other relevant records connected with the July 20 'Sansad Chalo' march organised over the NEET paper leak.
Observing that the allegations did not relate to isolated incidents for which individual victims could simply be relegated to filing separate complaints, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia sought responses from the authorities within four weeks and directed preservation of all relevant electronic records, including CCTV footage and videography, in accordance with the standard operating procedures issued by the police.
During the hearing before the Delhi High Court, senior advocates N. Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Vikas Singh, appearing for different petitioners, alleged that students exercising their Constitutional right to protest were subjected to disproportionate force, including lathi-charge, use of tear gas and other coercive measures, and sought registration of FIRs, preservation of electronic evidence and an independent probe.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, opposed the PILs, contending that prohibitory orders were in force, the crowd had turned violent, police personnel were injured and public property was damaged.
The Centre’s law officer argued that the petitions were based largely on social media videos and that those alleging assault could avail statutory remedies instead of invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
Rejecting the contention that every affected individual should be relegated to filing separate complaints, the Delhi High Court had observed that if the allegations pertained to a larger incident involving police action during a public protest, they could not be brushed aside merely on that ground. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on September 11.
Advertisement