Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Petitions Alleging Police Excesses Against Student Protesters Over Exam Paper Leaks

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on Monday two petitions alleging excessive use of police force against students participating in protests across the country over the issue of exam paper leaks. The matter was mentioned before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who urged the court to take up the petitions on an urgent basis, saying incidents of alleged police excesses against student protesters were continuing across the country, Live Law reports. Court Steps In As Protest Concerns Mount Sankaranarayanan informed the court that the petitions had not been mentioned earlier as they were awaiting diary numbers, but had now been formally filed with all procedural requirements completed. He submitted that the States had been made parties in the matter. STORY | Paper leak protest: SC will hear pleas alleging police excesses on students The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on July 27 two separate petitions alleging police excesses on students protesting against the NEET paper leak. The matter was mentioned before a bench… pic.twitter.com/yyJZu8X3Jl "There is urgency because this is happening on a daily basis. Police is using excessive force against children. It is just going on unabated. Some controls are necessary. The Court stands between us and the police," he argued. Taking note of the submissions, the Chief Justice said, "Let it be listed, we will entertain." When the senior advocate reiterated the urgency, the Chief Justice directed that the petitions be listed for hearing on Monday. The development comes days after the Chief Justice, on July 22, declined to take up a letter petition concerning police action during protests at Jantar Mantar organised by the Cockroach Janata Party. On the same day, the Delhi High Court sought the response of the Delhi Police on petitions related to the action taken against protesters. Petitions Seek Wider Police Reforms, Independent Probe One of the petitions, filed through Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi, seeks directions to regulate police action during public protests. It has sought a ban on the deployment of plainclothes personnel for crowd-control duties, guidelines on the use of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and an independent probe into the police action during the July 20 student protest in Delhi. The petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi against the Union of India, the Delhi Government, the Delhi Police Commissioner and all States and Union Territories, seeks enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. It states that the immediate cause of action arose from the July 20, 2026 protest, when students and other citizens marched towards Parliament over issues concerning the education system and demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. According to the petition, the demonstration was met with heavy police deployment, barricading, tear gas, baton charges and large-scale detentions. The petition further alleges physical assaults on protesters, gender-based misconduct against female protesters and the use of force by unidentified or plainclothes personnel. It claims that at least 60 protesters were injured during the police action and argues that these allegations require an independent and impartial inquiry. It also alleges that the closure of metro services and internet shutdowns during the protests disrupted commuters, office-goers, students and patients, while affecting banking services, telemedicine, remote work and emergency services. The plea argues that the issues extend beyond a single incident and raise broader constitutional questions about police accountability, the regulation of peaceful assemblies and the exercise of coercive police powers across the country. It questions the repeated use of Section 163 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing that authorities have effectively converted the constitutional right to peaceful assembly into a system requiring prior police permission through repeated prohibitory orders. The petition also challenges Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), contending that the provision is vague, overbroad and capable of criminalising peaceful political dissent and criticism of the government. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Somnath v. State of Maharashtra, the petition alleges that the deployment of plainclothes personnel during the July 20 protest violated the requirement that officers carrying out arrests or interrogations display visible identification. Article (32) Student peaceful protest all paper leak from Delhi Jantar Mantar to Parliament Delhi Police lathicharge on students, misbehaved with girls, complaint made under Article (32) Supreme court In which the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. #DelhiprotestJantarmantr pic.twitter.com/X48dPfaRdj Among the directions sought are national guidelines prohibiting police officers from carrying out crowd-control operations or arrests in plain clothes or without visible identity badges, a standard operating procedure governing the use of Section 163 of the BNSS, safeguards against the misuse of Section 152 of the BNS, implementation of the police reforms directed in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), and the establishment of independent Police Complaints Authorities. The petition has also sought the constitution of an independent Judicial Commission or a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the alleged police excesses, gender-based violence and arbitrary detentions during the July 20 protest. It has further sought directions for the registration of an FIR against police personnel allegedly involved in assaults and sexual abuse of female protesters, along with their identification, suspension and prosecution.