Ahead of hearing pleas on alleged police excesses during the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak protests, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant assured that “every side will get justice,” indicating the Supreme Court would consider the rights and concerns of all parties involved.
Ahead of the Supreme Court taking up petitions concerning the police action at the protests over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that “every side will get justice,” signalling that the Court would weigh the matter from the standpoint of all parties rather than approach it from the perspective of the petitioners alone.
The Chief Justice made the remark on the eve of the hearing, while speaking at an international conference held to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
Explaining the approach the Court would bring to a politically charged matter, the Chief Justice said,
“Every side must and will get justice ..those who so deserve ..in accordance with law they should get the justice. It’s not that someone has filed the petition therefore it will be one way of listening the matters. The courts always keep the aspect of viewpoint of every party, the aspect of the case and whatever the law requires and the constitutional principles require the court will accordingly act upon.”
One of the public interest litigations before the Court seeks a neutral, time-bound investigation into alleged attacks on journalists covering the demonstrations at Jantar Mantar. The petition frames the issue narrowly, expressly disclaiming any attempt to have the Court take sides in the underlying political dispute.
It states,
“This petition does not ask this Hon’ble Court to choose between the Government and the protesters, to certify the editorial fairness of any television channel, or to criminalise peaceful dissent.”
Setting out the constitutional question it says the case actually raises, the petition adds,
“It raises a narrower constitutional question: whether field journalists, camerapersons and media workers may be surrounded, sexually abused, chased, beaten, dispossessed of their equipment or threatened with death because a section of a crowd dislikes the perceived editorial position of their employer.”
Referring to incidents reported between July 18 and July 23, the petitioner alleges that several journalists were assaulted, intimidated or subjected to gendered abuse while covering the protests, and names a number of reporters and camerapersons among those said to have been targeted, including allegations of sexual abuse and death threats directed at a woman television reporter.
The petition seeks the immediate preservation of a wide range of electronic evidence CCTV footage, police videography, drone and body-camera recordings, wireless and control-room records, deployment and medical records, and original video files supplied by journalists along with an investigation by officers unconnected with the crowd-control operation, protection for victims and witnesses, and a status report on the complaints received, the FIRs registered and the steps taken.
These allegations remain untested, and no finding has been recorded on them.
A separate PIL seeks the constitution of an independent Judicial Commission, headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court, to inquire into the alleged excessive and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement against protesters in Delhi and in connected incidents in Bihar, along with the registration of FIRs against the police personnel said to be responsible.
Filed through Advocate-on-Record Abhigya Kushwah and drawn by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, that petition frames the controversy as one going to fundamental constitutional guarantees, stating that “it concerns issues of substantial constitutional and public importance concerning the right of citizens to peacefully express dissent, assemble without arms and seek accountability from the Government.”
On the legal standard governing the use of force, it submits,
“The use of force against an assembly is required to satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality, and the conduct of particular individuals cannot automatically justify indiscriminate action against peaceful participants.”
The petitions arise from the agitation that gripped central Delhi through July. The protest began in June 2026 on a call by the online collective Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), against repeated leaks of examination question papers and demanding the resignation of Ex–Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
It gathered momentum after climate activist Sonam Wangchuk joined it and began a hunger strike in solidarity; he was later removed from the protest site and hospitalised by the Delhi Police, who cited his deteriorating health, and ended his 26-day fast at Medanta Hospital in Gurugram on July 23.
The demonstration culminated in a call for a “Sansad Chalo” march towards Parliament on July 20, for which the police had cautioned that no permission had been granted. After protesters gathered in large numbers, clashes broke out, and allegations emerged of lathi charges, the use of tear gas and violent action by the police against the students allegations the Delhi Police have denied. Multiple FIRs were registered across central Delhi.
The Jantar Mantar protest was called off on July 25, after Pradhan tendered his resignation, conceding the agitation’s central demand but the litigation over how the protests were policed has continued.