THE SUPREME COURT has constituted a High-Powered Committee (‘HPC’) headed by former Supreme Court judge R. Subhash Reddy to inquire into the allegations of use of excessive force and violence by Delhi Police against the protesting students at Jantar Mantar last month.
The HPC will also comprise former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Ravi Shankar Jha; former judge of the Delhi High Court Justice Shalinder Kaur; former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) Rishi Kumar Shukla; and former Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Dr. L.R. Bishnoi as members.
A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana outlined the mandate of the HPC to inquire into:
The use of excessive force and violence against protesters by police authorities and other agencies, including the deployment of pellet guns, electric batons, lathi charges, and tear gas without adequate warning or proportionality, resulting in severe bodily harm and injuries, some of which are alleged to be of a grievous and lasting nature;
The question of ensuring a proportionate and measured police response during protests, public gatherings, and peaceful assemblies, so as to strike an appropriate balance between the maintenance of public order and the constitutional right to peaceful dissent;
The desirability of banning the use of metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile-action guns, having regard to the grave and, at times, irreversible bodily harm occasioned by their deployment against protesters;
The necessity of ensuring that police and security personnel wear proper uniforms and visible nameplates at the time of effecting arrests or using force during crowd-control operations, so as to secure accountability and enable the identification of individual officers;
An inquiry into the allegations pertaining to the monitoring and surveillance of protesters by police personnel, and the extent to which such measures, if undertaken, were consistent with the protesters’ constitutional rights to privacy and free assembly;
The alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, molestation and/or any secondary victimisation directed against female protesters, which, given the gravity and sensitivity of the allegations, warrant a focused and expeditious inquiry;
The provision of medical and other requisite support, including award of compensation, to victims of alleged police abuse, including the manner and adequacy of such support extended thus far;
Regulation of the issuance of blanket prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, so as to prevent their use as a routine or pre-emptive measure that forecloses the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly rather than as a genuine, proportionate response to a real and imminent threat to public order; and
The establishment of strict constitutional thresholds and safeguards to prevent Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, from being invoked as an instrument to stifle political dissent and peaceful protest, thereby ensuring that the provision remains confined to its intended purpose and is not permitted to operate as a chilling restraint upon constitutionally protected speech and assembly.
The HPC has also been asked to examine counter-allegations from the families of police personnel and the State which include:
The alleged use of force and violence by protesters against police officials and other security personnel, which, according to the Respondents, has been understated in the narrative advanced by the Petitioners and warrants an equally rigorous and unbiased examination;
The damage occasioned to public property on account of the actions of the protesters during the course of the said demonstrations, including the destruction of and injury caused to government installations, vehicles, and other assets belonging to the State and to private citizens alike; and
The injuries sustained by the police forces in the course of discharging their duties, as well as the consequent mental and emotional trauma borne by their kith and kin, which merits due recognition and consideration on a par with the grievances raised by the Petitioners.
The Bench has directed the parties to approach the HPC and submit such relevant material, documentary evidence, and suggestions as they may deem fit, in such manner as may be decided by the HPC through its Chairperson.
The Bench has also granted liberty for complaints, representations, and material to be provided anonymously so that the identity of the complainants and witnesses is protected.
Who are the HPC members?
Justice Reddy retired from the Supreme Court in January 2022. He also served as Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court before his elevation to the Supreme Court in November 2018.
Justice Jha retired as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in October 2023. He originally belonged to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Justice Jha was caught in a controversy when the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (‘HCBA’) passed a resolution calling for a boycott along with his transfer in May 2021.
The HCBA statement added: “The Chief Justice has not cooperated with the Bar and has also taken least interest in the problems faced by the general public of the states of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh. Despite various requests and offers of viable solutions, the Chief Justice has remained adamant and has done little for the growth of the institution, legal fraternity and general public of both states and the UT.”
The HCBA executive committee expressed concerns over non-listing of critical matters, especially habeas corpus petitions, anticipatory bails, regular bails, suspension of sentence, stay matters, and other matters involving a violation of fundamental rights.
Justice Kaur retired as a Delhi High Court judge last year in September. She authored the judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima and others in the Delhi riots case even as they had been languishing in jail for over five years without trial.
Former CBI Director Shukla was appointed to the post in February 2019. He retired as CBI Director in February 2021. Before his appointment as CBI Director, he was DGP of Madhya Pradesh but was removed by then Chief Minister Kamal Nath. Mallikarjun Kharge, who was a member of the High-Powered Committee in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition (headed by the Prime Minister, with the Chief Justice of India as a member), had dissented over the appointment of Shukla as CBI Director. Kharge had said S. Javed Ahmed, a 1983-batch UP cadre officer, was more qualified for the post in line with Supreme Court guidelines and the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
Bishnoi, an Assam-Meghalaya cadre IPS officer from the 1991 batch, assumed charge as DGP of Meghalaya on May 20, 2022, and retired on May 19, 2024.
Background
The students’ protests originated from widespread outrage over repeated examination paper leaks, particularly the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. The protest was spearheaded by the CJP, which came into existence after Chief Justice Surya Kant compared unemployed youth to “cockroaches” and “parasites.” The Chief Justice later clarified that his remark was in the context of those lawyers who have fake degrees.
Students from all over India sat on dharna for weeks at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. On July 20, the CJP organised a “Sansad Chalo” march towards Parliament, the day on which incidents of police excesses against students were reported.
A day before the scheduled march, well-known social activist and educator Sonam Wangchuk, who had been on an indefinite hunger strike in solidarity since late June, was picked up by the Special Staff and the Delhi Police and admitted to Safdarjung Hospital.
The agitation ended after Pradhan resigned on July 25. Two Union Ministers subsequently assured the CJP that cases against protesting students would be withdrawn. States such as Bihar and Assam later announced steps to drop FIRs and release detainees.
