NEET-UG protests: Supreme Court rejects change in high-powered probe committee, says probe into firearms, excesses must come first

A three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refused to reconstitute the HPEC and criticized the petitioners, including students, for indulging in “conjecture and preconceived notions”. | Photo credit: SHASHI SHEKHAR KASHYAP

The Supreme Court has expressed “distress” over petitioners’ allegation of “conflict of interest” in its High-Powered Inquiry Committee (HPEC) set up to probe the July 20 police crackdown on the Cockroach Janta Party protests.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refused to reconstitute the HPEC and criticized the petitioners, who include students, for indulging in “conjecture and preconceived notions”.

On August 20, the court appointed the HPEC headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy to look into the issues and allegations, including those of police excesses on students during the nationwide protests against the NEET-UG paper leaks.

Besides Justice Reddy, the committee includes Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Chief Justice of 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 LR Bishnoi, former Director General of Police, Meghalaya.

The petitioners, represented by senior advocates N. Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, advocates Prashant Bhushan, Vrinda Grover and Neha Rathi, clarified that they are not biased but the committee should also inspire confidence.

However, the court expressed grievance that the disparagement by the appellants had started even before the HPEC work began.

“We are compelled to observe with some degree of concern that the endowments on HPEC have been imposed in a manner which is premature and hasty. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to make any changes in the composition of the committee, especially where the prayer for such reconstitution is based on nothing but conjecture and preconceived notions,” the Supreme Court said even before the court of doubt. in its September 10 order published on Wednesday (16 September 2026).

The court highlighted the fact that the HPEC was set up to assist the Supreme Court itself with “the highest standards of fairness and transparency and with an unbiased approach”.

“HPEC is not constituted to plead the cause of one party or the other before us,” the court said.

The court reiterated that the HPEC investigation will immediately focus on the use of firearms, targeted violence, harassment of women protesters and excessive violence and destruction of property by both sides.

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

“It goes without saying that utmost confidentiality will be maintained regarding any statement or evidence submitted by such vulnerable HPEC witnesses. In support of this, a separate online portal may be created to facilitate submission of documents and evidence by such witnesses and other necessary stakeholders,” the order said.

The Bench appointed Senior Advocate Monika Gusain and Registered Advocate C. Solomon as amici curiae in the case to assist the apex court and act as independent arbitrators between the parties.

The court said the “broader constitutional questions” would be discussed at an “appropriate stage”. These issues include the use of facial recognition surveillance by police at the Jantar Mantar protest site and the alleged storage of this data by private entities.

Published – 16 Sep 2026 11:23 IST