The Supreme Court of India has said that people have a constitutional right to protest peacefully. This right cannot be reduced just because people are protesting.

Court on Police Force:

The Court was hearing cases about claims that police used too much force during recent student protests over examination paper leaks. The Bench had Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana. It said democratic protests must be handled within the law and police must not use more force than necessary. The Bench also said there should be the same rules across India for policing public protests. It added that claims of police excesses must be independently investigated.

Protest Is Not a Reason for Force:

These remarks came when several petitions were brought before the Court. The petitions say police used excessive force against students protesting in different parts of the country over examination paper leaks. The Bench said police action does not become legal only because a protest is happening.

CJI Surya Kant orally observed, "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."

The Bench also allowed a lawyer for the families of police personnel who were allegedly injured during the protests to take part in the case. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said injuries to protesters and police personnel are equally important. He remarked, "Injury to individual, be it to policemen or [students], is of equal concern. We may call upon state to concern why adequate equipment not given to police to handle such...they should have helmets"

All Cases Heard Together:

The Court said all petitions on similar issues will be heard together on Tuesday. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan had first urgently raised the matter last Friday. He asked for immediate action because of reports that police were using excessive force during the ongoing protests. At that time, the Chief Justice said the Court would consider the matter.

Earlier, on July 22, the CJI had refused to hear a letter petition about the July 20 protest at Jantar Mantar. He later explained that no formally filed petition was before the Court at that time.

Petition on Police Rules:

One petition before the Supreme Court was filed through Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi. It asks the Court to make rules for police conduct during public protests. It asks for:

• A ban on using plainclothes personnel for crowd-control work.

• Guidelines on using powers under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

• An independent investigation into the alleged police action during the July 20 student protest in Delhi.

The petition states, "The current generation of youth is experiencing deprivation, unemployment, expensive education, loneliness, and a sense of alienation and betrayal by their own government within their own country (violating Article 16). They are presenting their legitimate demands to the government in a peaceful manner (Article 19). However, in return, they are receiving lathi charges, tear gas, pellet guns, and outrage against the modesty of female students peacefully protesting (violating Article 21). Day by day, the government is becoming increasingly cruel toward these protests. The atrocities committed on July 20 against students protesting peacefully are no less than the atrocities of the Jallianwala Bagh."

Another petition was filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi against the Union of India, the Delhi Government, the Commissioner of Delhi Police, and all States and Union Territories. It asks for enforcement of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(d), and 21 of the Constitution.

July 20 Protest:

The petition says the issue began with events on July 20, 2026. On that day, students and other citizens marched towards Parliament. They demanded changes in the education system and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Claims Against Police:

According to the petition, police used a large force, set up barricades, used tear gas, carried out baton charges, and detained many people. It also says protesters were physically attacked, female participants faced misconduct, and unidentified or plainclothes personnel took part in police action. The petition says at least sixty protesters were injured. It argues that these claims need a fair and independent investigation.

The petition also says that restrictions during the protests affected people beyond the protest area. Metro services were stopped and the internet was shut down. This affected commuters, students, office-goers, patients, and access to banking, telemedicine, remote work, and emergency services.

It says the case raises bigger constitutional questions about police accountability, rules for peaceful gatherings, and how police use force across India.

Challenge to Protest Restrictions:

The petition questions the repeated use of Section 163 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It says authorities keep issuing prohibitory orders again and again. Because of this, the constitutional right to peaceful assembly starts to feel like something that needs permission. The petition argues that such restrictions are unconstitutional when there is no immediate threat to public order.

The petition also challenges Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It says the section is too broad and can be used to criminalise peaceful political protest and criticism of the government. It argues that this can discourage people from using their right to free speech.

The petition also says that using unidentified or plainclothes police personnel during the July 20 protest went against Supreme Court principles in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Somnath v. State of Maharashtra. These principles say police officers making arrests or carrying out interrogations must show visible identification.

What the Petition Seeks:

The petitioner has asked for national guidelines.These guidelines would stop police from doing crowd-control duty or making arrests unless they wear identifiable uniforms or name badges. The petition also asks for:

• A standard operating procedure for using Section 163 BNSS.

• Safeguards against misuse of Section 152 BNS in peaceful protest or political dissent cases.

• Implementation of police reforms ordered by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), including independent Police Complaints Authorities.

The petition also asks for an independent Judicial Commission or a Special Investigation Team led by a retired Supreme Court judge. It wants this body to investigate the alleged police excesses, gender-based violence, and arbitrary detentions linked to the July 20 protest.

It also asks for directions to register an FIR against police personnel allegedly involved in assaults and sexual abuse of female protesters. It seeks their identification, suspension, and prosecution according to law.

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