BREAKING| Supreme Court To Order SIT Probe Into Student Protest Violence, Directs Release Of Detained Students With No Criminal Background

The Supreme Court today observed that there was a need for a fair and independent investigation into the allegations of injuries to the students and police officials during the student protests which took place across the country last week.

The Court hinted that it might constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by a former Supreme Court Judge for the investigation, and sought the responses of the Union, Delhi NCT and the States of Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala.

The Court also passed various interim directions, especially for the release of all students having no criminal antecedents arrested or detained over the participation in protests.

The Court directed the preservation of all CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, wireless communication and PCR logs.

Furthermore, the Court directed the States to ensure that personal information and digital data of protesters are preserved and are not brought in the public domain for the time being. The personal data or details of the protesters must not be published.

The Court also directed that no coercive steps should be taken against students over protests, provided they have no criminal antecedents. 

The Court initially ordered that children below the age of 18 years who have been detained or arrested must be released. However, when Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat pointed out that some of them are in the age group of 19 or 20 years, the Court clarified that all students, without criminal antecedents, be released.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a bunch of petitions alleging police brutality against student protestors across the country who protested against examination paper leaks and other systemic irregularities from July 20 onwards. The Court also heard petitions filed on behalf of injured police officers and media persons.

The bench observed that "the allegations made by petitioners prima facie make out a case for an independent and fair probe. Such a probe will effectively address allegations..."

The petitions will be considered next on August 3.

Courtroom hearing

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for writ petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, said that the matter concerned not just the police action during the protests in Delhi, but across the country.

The CJI said that several applications/petitions have been filed highlighting instances such as use of shock batons, life-threatening injury to a 19-year-old girl, pellet gun injuries, assault of an advocate, violence by police in civil dress, molestation of young women, use of lathis with nails etc.

Summing up the allegations and averments in the batch of petitions, the CJI said : "It was initially meant to be a peaceful protest by students. Such a protest is protected by the Constitution, no doubt. Now two things can happen. People who want to stop the protests can indulge in violence after entering it. There can be uninvited guests to protests. Second, there are petitions on behalf of injured police....the question is why there should not be an independent investigation?"

Sankaranarayanan said that there was no prohibitory order under S.144 CrPC/163 BNSS applicable to the Jantar Mantar area. He added that the Supreme Court in the past in cases such as the Ramlila incident has issued guidelines on crowd dispersal - first address through loudspeakers, then water cannons, then lathis below knees, and then tear gas shells. Violence should be last resort. However, those protocols were violated. He added that there were policemen without name-tags and uniform who indulged in violence, and claimed that there are countless videos which have caught the police excesses.

"Whoever has committed excess, committed atrocities on innocent people, law will take care of them. For that, there needs to be a completely independent and fair investigation. Probe is meaningless if no responsibility is fixed," the Chief Justice said.

The senior counsel suggested that the probe be monitored by a former Supreme Court judge, preferably a former Chief Justice of India. Despite the Supreme Court taking up the matter, a Bihar officer used an AK-47 rifle against students, Sankaranarayanan highlighted, driving home the need to send a strong message.

The Chief Justice said that there might be a need to revisit the guidelines and protocols in tune with the changing times. 

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing in another matter, referred to instances of use of shock batons against protesters, and a senior police officer slapping a woman. Divan also referred to videos showing a police officer threatening youngsters that he will trap them in a narcotics case. Divan pressed for an interim order to prohibit the publication of personal data of protesters collected by the law enforcement.

The CJI, reiterating the need for a probe, said that the principles laid down in the precedents need to be collated, and a strong protocol needs to be formulated.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat said that the scale of violence which took place in Bihar was much greater than what happened in Delhi. About 150 individuals, mostly minors, are still in custody, and they were produced before the Magistrate only after 48 hours, he said. Despite the decision taken by the Bihar government yesterday night to withdraw the cases, the detained persons have not yet been released.

Farasat added that in Delhi, the police had assaulted certain lawyers even after the crowd had dispersed.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted the application filed by Junaid Malik, a food volunteer at the protests, who was allegedly picked up by the police and dropped off at Mussourie. Bhushan said that the police had harassed and detained his family members. The lawyer further alleged that a truck full of stones was brought to Jantar Mantar early morning. When the CJI said that the police is alleging that the truck was brought by protesters, Advocate Vrinda Grover replied that if such a truck can reach there passing the intense police bundobust, then it "raises more questions."

The Chief Justice agreed that a "prima facie case for an independent investigation has been made out."

Senior Advocate N Hariharan suggested that the Delhi High Court petitions may also be transferred to the Supreme Court. He suggested continuing the interim order passed by the High Court for preservation of the electronic records. Grover, appearing for pellet victims, added that the log books and general diaries also must be ordered to be preserved.

Union's response

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that there are two sets of petitions, raising allegations of injuries to students as well as police officials. "If students were attacked, it is a serious matter, and the Government cannot take it lightly," the SG said. The SG added that about 250 policemen also suffered injuries. The SG said that he does not think that students have attacked the police, and that it might have been caused by anti-social elements who infiltrated the protests. The SG also accepted the Court's suggestion for an independent investigation under the monitoring of a retired judge appointed at the Court's discretion.

Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju appeared in the petition filed on behalf of injured policemen. He said that an orchestrated assault was carried out on men and women in uniform. Justice Bagchi at this point said that police should have protective gear. Sankaranarayanan then commented that the students did not have any protective gear.

Sankaranarayanan also submitted that the police was now taking steps to profile the protesters using AI surveillance and face recognition tools, and sought directions against such practices.

Yesterday, when the matter was mentioned, CJI Kant orally observed that the right to peaceful and lawful protest is constitutionally protected and that mere agitation cannot justify a lathi-charge. The Court further observed that allegations of police excess should be independently examined and stressed the need for uniform police protocols for handling demonstrations across the country.

"Right to peaceful, lawful protest absolutely guaranteed under Constitution. So long as it is peaceful agitation, merely because there is agitation, there can't be [excess]...If there is excess committed, it should be independently examined. It's not only a case of Delhi. Uniformity in protocol required. Merely because agitation there, doesn't mean lathi-charge. Discipline integral to democratic process." CJI Kant orally observed yesterday.

The Court had also indicated that it may enquire from States/UTs as to why adequate safeguard measures, like protective helmets, are not provided to police personnel when handling large demonstrations.

Last Friday, the matter was mentioned before a bench led by CJI Kant by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. Citing the ongoing protests and reported incidents of use of excessive force by the police, the senior counsel pressed for urgent listing. In response to the same, the CJI said that the matter would be entertained.

Prior to that, on July 22, the CJI had refused to take up a letter petition raising the issue of police force at Jantar Mantar protest on July 20 (mentioned by Advocate Narendra Mishra). Later, the CJI clarified that the listing was denied as there was no properly filed petition before the court at the time.

What do the petitioners say?

One of the petitions, filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, through Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi, seeks directions to regulate police action during public protests, including a ban on the deployment of plainclothes personnel for crowd-control duties, guidelines governing the use of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and an independent probe into the police action during the July 20 student protest in Delhi.

The petition states that the immediate cause of action arose from the events of July 20, 2026, when students and other citizens marched towards Parliament over issues concerning the education system, and seeking the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. It contends that the demonstration was met with extensive police deployment, barricading, tear gas, baton charges and large-scale detentions. The petition further alleges physical assaults on protesters, gender-based misconduct against female protesters, and the use of force by unidentified or plainclothes personnel. The petition alleges that at least 60 protesters were injured during the police action, and contends that these allegations require an independent and impartial inquiry.

The petition also contends that the closure of metro services and internet shutdowns during the protests disrupted the daily lives of commuters, office-goers, students and patients, and affected access to banking, telemedicine, remote work and emergency services.

Another petition, filed by Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha, has prayed for a direction to the States/UTs to register FIRs on allegations of police brutality and disproportionate police action against peaceful protestors between July 20 and July 25 in different parts of the country, especially on July 20 at Delhi's Jantar Mantar.

He seeks a Special Investigation Team probe in the respective states/UTs by a team comprising the Director General of Police and 2 senior women IPS officers (not below the rank of Inspector General of Police). To ensure fairness, it is prayed that the probe may be guided by a retired High Court judge and monitored by the Supreme Court. It may be completed in a span of 3 months, the petitioner prays.

Jha further seeks directions to the States/UTs to preserve the videos circulating on social media on disproportionate use of police force and identification of personnel deployed (including those in civil dress).

An advocate has also approached the Court alleging that he was assaulted and abused by the Delhi police when he visited the Nizamuddin Police Station on July 23 for the release of students detained over their participation in the protests at Jantar Mantar.

Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors. Diary no. 44078/2026 (and connected cases)