Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Rejects Petition to Re-constitute Probe Committee into NEET Protest Violence
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Decision and Mandate
On September 10, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court—Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana—refused to alter the composition of the five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) investigating police excesses during the July 20 student protests.
The bench directed the HPEC to prioritize inquiries into:
- use of pellet guns,
- targeted violence and harassment of female protesters,
- injuries to police personnel, and
- excessive violence and property damage on either side.
It ordered protection for vulnerable witnesses, confidentiality of their identities, and the creation of an online portal for submitting evidence. Senior Advocate Monika Gusain and advocate-on-record C. Solomon were appointed as amici curiae to assist the committee.
Background of the July Protests
The agitation began on June 20 at Jantar Mantar, organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). On July 20, protesters marched toward Parliament and clashed with police who deployed lathis and teargas. Injuries occurred on both sides and property was damaged. The protest ended on July 25 after Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned and the government accepted the CJP’s remaining demands.
Committee Composition
The HPEC, constituted in August 20, is chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy. Its members are:
- Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
- Justice Shalinder Kaur, former Delhi High Court judge,
- Rishi Kumar Shukla, former Director of the CBI,
- Dr. L.R. Bishnoi, retired Director General of Police, Meghalaya.
Timeline of Key Judicial Actions
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 20 | Protest march launches at Jantar Mantar. |
| July 20 | Major clash; allegations of pellet-gun use arise. |
| July 25 | Protest ends following ministerial resignation. |
| August 18 | Court tasks HPEC with inquiry; mandate later sharpened. |
| August 20 | Formal appointment of HPEC members. |
| September 10 | Supreme Court refuses re-constitution of HPEC. |
| September 16, 2026 | Court’s order published. |
Official Statements & Responses
The order emphasized “utmost confidentiality” for vulnerable witnesses and authorized an online portal for secure submissions.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the petitioners’ request to alter the committee, urging the court to disregard the alleged conflict-of-interest claims.
Criticism & Opposition
Petitioners, represented by senior advocates Prashant Bhushan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued that former DGP L.R. Bishnoi—a close friend of a senior functionary under investigation—posed a conflict of interest. They contended that the committee’s composition could undermine confidence in the inquiry and called for its re-constitution before any investigation began.
The court noted “some measure of disquiet” at these pre-emptive criticisms, observing that they were raised before the HPEC had commenced its work.
Data & Statistics
- Five members constitute the HPEC.
- The protest period spanned June 20 – July 25.
- The court’s directive includes a confidential online portal for witness protection, though its launch date was not specified.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to re-constitute the HPEC preserves the original investigative framework while focusing the committee on specific allegations of police conduct and ensuring witness protection.