NEET-UG protests: Supreme Court refuses change in High-Powered Enquiry Committee, says inquiry on pellet guns, excesses must come first

The Supreme Court has expressed “disquiet” at petitioners’ aspersions of ‘conflict of interest’ within its High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) formed to probe into the police crackdown on Cockroach Janta Party protests on July 20.

Refusing to reconstitute the HPEC, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant criticised the petitioners, who include students, for indulging in “conjecture and preconceived notions”. On August 20, the court had tasked the HPEC headed by former apex court judge, Justice R.

Subhash Reddy, to look into issues and allegations, including those of police excesses on students during nationwide protests against NEET-UG paper leaks. Beside Justice Reddy, the committee includes Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Shalinder Kaur, former Judge of the Delhi High Court; Rishi Kumar Shukla, former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation; and L.R.

Bishnoi, retired Director General of Police, Meghalaya. The petitioners, represented by senior advocates N. Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, advocates Prashant Bhushan, Vrinda Grover and Neha Rathi, had clarified that they were not apprehending bias, but the committee should inspire confidence too.

But the court expressed a sense of chagrin that the disparagement from the petitioners’ side had commenced even before the HPEC had started work. “We are constrained to observe, with some measure of disquiet, that aspersions have been cast upon the HPEC in a manner that is both premature and precipitate.

In the circumstances, we are not inclined to effect any alteration in the constitution of the Committee, particularly where the prayer for such reconstitution proceeds on nothing more than conjecture and preconceived notions, articulated even before the HPEC has embarked upon its enquiry,” the Supreme Court observed in its September 10 order, published on Wednesday (September 16, 2026).

The court underscored the fact that the HPEC was constituted to assist the Supreme Court itself, with the “highest standards of fairness and transparency and with a dispassionate approach”. “The HPEC is not created to espouse the causes of one or the other party before us,” the court said.

The court reiterated that the immediate focus of the HPEC inquiry would be on the use of pellet guns, the targeted violence, harassment of female protesters, and the excessive violence and destruction of property by both sides.

The apex court further ordered the launch of an online portal for vulnerable witnesses to submit supporting documents to the HPEC directly. It directed the HPEC to protect these witnesses and keep their identities and participation confidential.

“It goes without saying that utmost confidentiality shall be maintained in respect of any statements given or evidence submitted by such vulnerable witnesses to the HPEC. In furtherance thereof, a separate online portal may be created to facilitate such witnesses and other requisite stakeholders to submit their documents and evidence,” the order said.

The Bench appointed senior advocate Monika Gusain and advocate-on-record C. Solomon as amici curiae in the case to assist the apex court and act as independent arbiters among the parties. The court said “broader constitutional questions” would be taken up for hearing at the “appropriate stage”.

These issues involve the use of facial recognition surveillance by the police at the Jantar Mantar protest site and the alleged storage of that data with private entities.