The Supreme Court constituted a five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee under Justice (Retd.) R. Subhash Reddy to probe alleged police excesses against student protesters, prioritising women’s complaints.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has constituted a five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC), chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice (Retd.) R. Subhash Reddy, to investigate the allegations of excessive and disproportionate use of force by the police against student protesters at Jantar Mantar and elsewhere across the country directing it to take up, on priority, the alleged targeted violence and molestation of women protesters and the grievous injuries said to have been caused by police action [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others, WP (Crl) No. 280/2026].
In a detailed order passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, the Court set out the composition of the committee, framed the issues it is to examine, and made clear that the broader constitutional questions including on facial-recognition surveillance would be decided by the Court itself in due course.
The composition of the committee
The Court named the five members it had earlier declined to disclose in open court. The HPEC comprises Justice (Retd.) R. Subhash Reddy, former judge of the Supreme Court, as Chairperson; Justice (Retd.) Ravi Shankar Jha, former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice (Retd.) Shalinder Kaur, former judge of the Delhi High Court; Rishi Kumar Shukla, former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation; and Dr. L.R. Bishnoi, retired Director General of Police, Meghalaya.
The Court said the committee had been constituted bearing in mind the individual expertise and experience of each member and the diversity of its composition, and expressed confidence that its recommendations would be of “invaluable assistance” to the Court. The HPEC is empowered to enlist forensic, technical and domain experts as it sees fit.
The allegations the committee will examine
Recording the competing narratives, the Court noted that the petitioners had alleged a series of excesses — the deployment of pellet guns causing grievous and, in several instances, irreversible injury; violence by officers in plain clothes who evaded identification; the use of electric batons; indiscriminate lathi charges and tear gas without adequate warning; threats to fabricate evidence and plant incriminating material; and acts of violence against women and children. The respondents, in turn, had contended that anti-social elements with serious criminal antecedents, masquerading as students, had indulged in violence, injuring police personnel.
From the parties’ submissions, the Court framed a broad set of issues for the committee. On the petitioners’ side, these include the use of excessive force through pellet guns, electric batons, lathi charges and tear gas; ensuring a proportionate police response that balances public order against the right to peaceful dissent; the desirability of banning metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action or projectile guns; requiring police to wear proper uniforms and visible nameplates during arrests and crowd control; the alleged surveillance of protesters and its consistency with the rights to privacy and free assembly; the alleged targeted violence and molestation of women protesters; medical support and compensation for victims of alleged police abuse; the regulation of blanket prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita so they are not used pre-emptively to foreclose peaceful assembly; and constitutional safeguards to prevent Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita from being invoked to stifle political dissent.
On the respondents’ side, the committee will equally examine the alleged use of force by protesters against police, the damage to public property, and the injuries and trauma sustained by police personnel and their families the Court making clear these grievances merit consideration “on a par with” those of the petitioners.
ALSO READ: Gen Z Protests: Supreme Court To Set Up Judicial Committee, Weighs Quashing FIRs
Priority to the women protesters’ complaints
Significantly, the Court singled out two issues for priority treatment. Foremost, it directed the HPEC to take up the alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment and molestation of women protesters, “bearing in mind the sensitivity attendant upon the issues contained therein.” Alongside, the committee is to assess the grievous harm allegedly caused to protesters by the police — investigating the chain of command that led to any excesses, identifying those responsible, and determining whether any laws, rules or norms were breached in the use of force.
The Court asked the committee to complete its deliberations on these two priority issues “at the earliest” and submit a “First Interim Report.” Crucially, it directed that the enquiry not be a one-time exercise but a continuous and periodic assessment, with interim findings submitted from time to time so the Court can issue directions as warranted.
Protection for complainants, and constitutional questions reserved
The order builds in safeguards for those who come forward. Parties are granted liberty to approach the committee with material and suggestions, and notably complaints, representations and material may be submitted anonymously, so that the identity of complainants and witnesses is protected.
The Court entered a careful caveat that the “broader constitutional questions” arising in the matter would be decided by the Court itself in due course, after hearing both sides matters, it said, that call for “judicial nuance and circumspection.” This preserves for the Bench the constitutional issue over facial-recognition technology and surveillance that had been argued at the hearing, rather than delegating it to the committee.
ALSO READ: “Can We Disqualify Shinde?”: Supreme Court’s Key Question In Shiv Sena Case
Preservation of evidence and continuing directions
The Court directed the police, paramilitary forces and investigating agencies to hand over to the committee all the material whose preservation it had earlier ordered CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records and PCR call logs pertaining to the protests — and to extend full cooperation. It clarified that the constitution of the committee would not bar the police from taking administrative or disciplinary action against officers found to have contravened their conduct rules.
On logistics, the Union of India was directed to provide the Chairperson honorarium and facilities commensurate with a sitting Supreme Court judge, and to fund the committee’s functioning. The Court appointed advocates Ashima Mandla and Daksh Kadian as nodal officers for the petitioners, and Astha Singh for the respondents, to streamline communication. Notice was issued in the fresh matters, returnable on September 10.
Background
The order flows from the batch of petitions arising out of the policing of the student agitation over examination paper leaks in July, which culminated in the July 20 march towards Parliament. The Court had first taken up the matter on July 28, when it restrained coercive measures against protesting students without criminal antecedents, ordered the release of detained minors, and directed the preservation of protesters’ data recording even then that the allegations made out a prima facie case for an independent investigation. Over subsequent hearings it clarified that States could withdraw FIRs against peaceful protesters, narrowed the meaning of “criminal antecedents,” and heard the Delhi and Bihar governments’ affidavits denying excessive force. The present order formalises the investigative mechanism the Court had signalled it would create, and leaves the contested allegations — on both sides to be examined by the committee, with nothing yet adjudicated.