Around 750 lawyers from Delhi and Mumbai, along with several bar bodies, condemned the police crackdown on students protesting paper leaks, calling the lathi charge, tear gas and prohibitory orders a grave assault on constitutional rights and democratic dissent.
Around 750 lawyers from Delhi and Mumbai, along with several bar bodies, have issued statements condemning the police action against students demonstrating over examination paper leaks in the two cities, describing the lathi charges, use of tear gas and sweeping prohibitory orders as an assault on constitutional rights and on the space for democratic dissent.
Senior members of the Bar in both cities have sought accountability for the force deployed against young protesters, while questioning the legality of the blanket restrictions imposed on peaceful assembly.
Background: the protest and the police action
The agitation began in June 2026, when the Cockroach Janta Party, a youth-led collective, started a sustained demonstration at Jantar Mantar in the national capital over the alleged leak of the 2026 NEET-UG question paper and wider concerns about the conduct of public examinations. Its principal demand has been the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
The protest gathered momentum after climate activist Sonam Wangchuk arrived at the site and began an indefinite hunger strike, drawing student organisations and opposition leaders into its orbit.
Matters came to a head on July 20, when the collective attempted a march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament. A heavy police deployment and barricading were put in place to stop the march advancing beyond the sanctioned protest site. What followed is disputed. Protesters, opposition leaders and several bar bodies allege a lathi charge, the firing of tear gas shells and mass detentions, with over a hundred said to have been injured.
The Delhi Police have denied allegations of excessive force, and police sources have maintained that outside elements infiltrated the crowd and attacked personnel. Multiple FIRs were subsequently registered across central Delhi, and both versions are now the subject of pending litigation before the Delhi High Court.
In Delhi, a group of 650 lawyers put out a joint statement condemning the use of violence by the police against peaceful young demonstrators at Jantar Mantar on July 20. The signatories include Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Raju Ramachandran, Chander Uday Singh and Sanjay Hegde, along with Vrinda Grover, Prashant Bhushan and Shahrukh Alam, and a number of former judges.
The statement takes the position that meeting students with force rather than dialogue is unacceptable, and that violence against protesting students strikes at free expression, human dignity and the right to dissent. Its signatories recorded their solidarity with those harmed, intimidated or traumatised in the course of the police action, and asserted that the country’s Parliament is “not an ivory tower” placed beyond the reach of its citizens.
They have called on the government and on constitutional institutions to intervene to secure the safety of peaceful protesters.
The Supreme Court Bar Association has separately passed a resolution condemning the lathi charge on students and on members of the legal fraternity, characterising the resort to excessive and disproportionate force against peaceful students and lawyers as deeply disturbing and unacceptable in a democratic society.
The association has sought an impartial and time-bound inquiry into the incident.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association issued its own statement, expressing concern over the visuals showing force being used against students who had gathered peacefully over the integrity of public examinations.
Framing the issue in constitutional terms, SCAORA took the position that peaceful dissent in a constitutional democracy is not defiance but an exercise of the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), and that the measure of constitutional governance lies in how the State responds to peaceful disagreement rather than to agreement.
The Bombay Bar Association voiced grave concern over reports and video material appearing to show students subjected to lathi charges and tear gas, stating that if those reports are accurate, the use of force against students exercising constitutional rights cannot be countenanced in a society governed by the rule of law.
The association also deprecated the registration of FIRs as an intimidatory measure.
The sharper legal challenge came on July 21, when more than 120 lawyers, including senior advocates practising before the Bombay High Court, issued a statement objecting to consecutive prohibitory orders passed by the office of the Mumbai Police Commissioner the first covering July 7 to 21, the second running from July 23 to August 6.
Issued under Section 37(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act, these orders prohibit assemblies of five or more persons and processions across Mumbai, and have reportedly been invoked to detain over 300 people, including minors, near Shivaji Park. The stated basis for the detentions appears to have been the absence of permission to protest at Chaityabhoomi.
The lawyers’ central legal objection is procedural but consequential. Under the statute, such a prohibition cannot subsist beyond fifteen days without the sanction of the State government. Their contention is that by issuing back-to-back orders separated by a gap of only twenty-four hours, the police have effectively circumvented that safeguard.
They have urged the Commissioner to withdraw the orders, arguing that citizens should not be put to the expense of moving already overburdened courts to challenge orders resting on what they describe as plainly shaky legal footing.