The Supreme Court has refused to reconstitute the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) constituted to probe allegations surrounding violence during student protests, observing that the allegations against the panel were based on “conjecture and preconceived notions” even before it had commenced its enquiry.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to entertain the applications filed by some of the petitioners, raising reservations about the members of the committee.

During the hearing on September 10, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, backed by Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Dr AM Singhvi, had raised doubts about the committee, especially one member, a retired DGP from a north-eastern state, on the ground that he was proximate to a high functionary in the Union Government. On that day itself, the Court had made it clear that it will not entertain such contentions.

The applicants also sought that the committee be headed by a former Chief Justice of India, instead of former Supreme Court Judge Justice Subhash Reddy.

In the order uploaded yesterday, the Court specifically rejected the allegations against the committee as based on "conjectures and preconceived notions."

“Having perused the contents of the aforesaid application, we are constrained to observe, with some measure of disquiet, that aspersions have been cast upon the HPEC in a manner that is both premature and precipitate,” the Court observed.

Declining to alter the composition of the committee, the bench stated that the HPEC had been established to assist the Court with the highest standards of fairness and transparency and a dispassionate approach.

“The HPEC is not created to espouse the causes of one or the other party before us,” the Court clarified.

The bench directed the committee to proceed, in the first instance, with its enquiry into issues including the use of pellet guns, targeted violence and harassment of female protestors, and excessive violence and destruction of property on either side.

The Court reiterated that broader constitutional questions arising from the matter would be considered at the appropriate stage.

Protection For Minor Female Protestor

The Court also addressed concerns regarding the safety of a 14-year-old female protestor, whose vulnerability was highlighted in one of the petitions.

It was submitted that the girl and her family had received threats to their lives and that the Delhi Police had not taken action against those allegedly responsible.

Directing the Delhi Police to assess the threat perception, the Court ordered that necessary protection be provided to the child and her family. It further directed the police to expeditiously investigate the alleged threats and harassment.

The Delhi Police has been directed to file a status report on the matter before the next hearing.

Further Directions To Enquiry Committee

The Court issued several directions to facilitate the HPEC's functioning and the submission of evidence.

The committee was requested to provide protection to vulnerable witnesses, keep their identities confidential and maintain utmost confidentiality regarding their statements and evidence. It was also permitted to create a separate online portal to enable witnesses and other stakeholders to submit documents and evidence.

The Court clarified that the nodal counsel appointed under its earlier order would assist the Court in the proceedings, primarily in logistical matters, and would not serve as a communication channel between the HPEC, the Court and the parties.

The Registry was directed to furnish the nodal counsel with the paperbooks and other relevant material.

Further, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Dr. Monika Gusain and Advocate-on-Record C. Solomon as Amici Curiae. They will assist the Court as representatives of the HPEC and act as independent arbiters between the parties.

The HPEC was also requested to appoint a Member Secretary at the earliest to provide logistical and secretarial assistance.

The Court directed the committee to submit its first report at the earliest and listed the matter for further consideration on October 9, 2026.

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

Click here to read the order