The Supreme Court today said that allegations about injuries to students and police personnel during nationwide student protests last week need a fair and independent investigation.

SIT may be formed:

The Court said it was considering setting up a Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by a former Supreme Court Judge, to investigate the matter. It also asked the Union Government and the States of Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Kerala to respond.

Students to be released:

In addition, the court issued several interim directions. It ordered the release of all students arrested or detained for taking part in the protests, as long as they have no criminal antecedents.

Evidence must be saved:

The Court further directed that all CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-worn camera footage, wireless communication records and PCR logs related to the protests must be preserved.

Data must stay private:

The States were also told to protect the personal information and digital data of student protesters. This information must not be made public for now. The Court specifically said that the protesters’ personal details must not be disclosed or published.

No action against students:

The Court also ordered that no coercive action should be taken against students in connection with the protests, as long as they do not have any criminal antecedents.

What the case is about:

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard several petitions. These petitions alleged police brutality against student protesters across the country. The students have been protesting since July 20 against examination paper leaks and other systemic irregularities. The Bench also heard petitions filed for injured police personnel and media members.

Court’s view:

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 effeticely address allegations…”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for writ petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, said the issue was not limited to police action during the protests in Delhi. He said it also included incidents that happened across the country.

Right to protest:

“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.” CJ Kant orally observed.

Police safety:

The Court also indicated that it may ask the States and Union Territories to explain why police personnel handling large demonstrations did not have enough protective equipment, such as helmets.

Earlier hearing:

Last Friday, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the matter before a Bench led by CJI Kant. He referred to the ongoing protests and reported cases of excessive police force, and asked for an urgent hearing. The Chief Justice said the case would be considered.

First petition:

Earlier, on July 22, the Chief Justice had refused to hear a letter petition about the alleged use of police force during the July 20 protest at Jantar Mantar. Advocate Narendra Mishra had mentioned the matter. Later, the Chief Justice clarified that the request for listing was declined because no properly filed petition was pending before the Court at that time.

One petition was filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi through Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi. It seeks directions to regulate police action during public demonstrations. Among other requests, it seeks a ban on using plainclothes personnel for crowd-control duties, guidelines for using prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and an independent investigation into police action during the July 20 student protest in Delhi.

First petition

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

Claims of force:

According to the petition, the cause of action arose from events on July 20, 2026. On that day, students and other citizens marched towards Parliament to protest issues related to the education system and demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

The petition says the demonstration faced heavy police deployment, barricading, tear gas shelling, baton charges and large-scale detentions. It also says protesters were physically assaulted, female demonstrators faced gender-based misconduct, and force was used by unidentified or plainclothes personnel.

The petition claims that at least 60 protesters were injured during the police action and says these allegations need an independent and impartial investigation.

Other disruptions:

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

Jha’s petition:

Another petition was filed by Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha. It seeks directions to States and Union Territories to register FIRs over allegations of police brutality and disproportionate use of force against peaceful protesters between July 20 and July 25 in different parts of the country. It especially refers to the events at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 20.

Demand for state SITs:

This petition also seeks the setting up of a Special Investigation Team in the concerned States and Union Territories. The SIT should include the Director General of Police and two senior women IPS officers, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police. To ensure that the investigation is credible and impartial, the petition asks that it be conducted under the guidance of a retired High Court Judge and monitored by the Supreme Court. The petitioner has also asked that the investigation be completed within three months.

Jha has also asked the States and Union Territories to preserve all videos on social media that allegedly show the disproportionate use of police force. He has also sought preservation of records identifying personnel deployed during the protests, including those in plain clothes.

More complaints:

An advocate has also moved the Supreme Court, alleging that Delhi Police officials assaulted and verbally abused him when he went to Nizamuddin Police Station on July 23 to secure the release of students detained in connection with the Jantar Mantar protests.

A separate petition was recently filed by Junaid Malik, a volunteer who was distributing food during the Jantar Mantar protests. He alleges harassment by police officials.

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