NEET protest police excesses: what the Supreme Court hearing decides

The Supreme Court heard pleas on Tuesday, August 18 alleging police excesses against students who protested the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, a fortnight after the court said states could close or withdraw FIRs registered against NEET protesters, and days after a Delhi court took cognisance of the CBI's chargesheet in the leak case.

On the first day of the hearing, the Delhi Police filed an affidavit strongly defending the use of force during the "Chalo Sansad" protest in Delhi on July 20, telling the court the agitation was hijacked by "anti-social elements" and "history-sheeters", resulting in a breakdown of law and order that left more than 240 police personnel injured.

The hearing is the latest turn in a saga that began as a protest over a compromised entrance examination and has grown into a test of two questions at once, what happens to the students who protested and what happens to the police conduct those protests drew.

The leak and the protest

NEET-UG 2026 was thrown into crisis after its question paper leaked. About 22 lakh students registered for the examination on May 3, but the handwritten PDFs containing exam questions were found circulating on mobile phones between May 1 and 2. The leak triggered protests by students and aspirants, and the agitation quickly outgrew the examination hall. The protests became a wider argument about youth, democracy and the future of the country.

Against that backdrop, students were booked in FIRs, and police excesses are alleged to have been committed against those protesting the paper leak. Cases were registered against protestors. Cases were registered against protesting students across the country, in Bihar alone, about 64 cases were registered against protestors with 694 people arrested or detained over the July 25 protests. The police released 339 minors, while 355 people remained in custody over their alleged role in the violence. The cases were later dropped after public outcry over the police firing at the protesting students.

On August 3, the Supreme Court said states could close or withdraw FIRs against NEET protesters, the clearest statement yet of the court's position on the protest cases. The Chief Justice of India welcomed the clarification and sought its implementation. At that hearing, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the expression "criminal antecedents" in its order on releasing student protesters referred only to those involved in grave and heinous offences, reported Bar and Bench.

The CBI track: a separate case, moving fast

Alongside the protest cases, the investigation into the leak itself has advanced.

On August 8, the CBI exposed the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak plot. The agency in their chargesheet pinned the leaks on three subject experts hired by the National Testing Agency (NTA). On August 12, a Delhi court took cognisance of the CBI's chargesheet in the case.

The two tracks are legally distinct, the leak is a criminal conspiracy to compromise an examination while the protest cases are about how the state responded to students on the streets.

The leak has stayed live in politics even as the courts have taken it up. Union Home Minister Amit Shah said on August 12 that he was ready for discussion on all issues related to NEET. The same day, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government was ready to debate NEET but the Opposition was not.

What Tuesday's hearing is being asked to decide

The pleas listed for Tuesday, August 18,  allege police excesses against students protesting the NEET paper leak. The court is now being asked to examine the conduct of the police during the protests.

The Delhi Police affidavit, filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma of the New Delhi district in response to a batch of petitions alleging excessive use of force, said the force was willing to have its actions examined by a court-appointed panel.

"The use of force by police can be gone into by a Committee appointed by this Hon'ble Court and the Delhi police will fully cooperate with such Committee and provide all details necessary," reported Bar and Bench.

The police said more than 30,000 people, including alleged miscreants and anti-social elements, had gathered in and around Jantar Mantar on July 20 during the protests, which later turned violent. It said police resorted to force only after repeated warnings and attempts to prevent protesters from advancing towards Parliament were not heeded.

According to the affidavit, 2,873 people who attended the protest had particulars that matched existing crime records in official police databases. It said 92 of the people present at the site were involved in more than 10 criminal cases, of whom 47 were "history-sheeters".

The affidavit said the permission granted for the protest had lapsed on July 20 itself, but the protesters did not vacate the venue or disperse after holding the dharna. It said the officers were constrained to use force only after the protestors breached the multiple layers of the barricade and started resorting to violence.

"The right to protest peacefully is a fundamental right of every citizen, including young students/young individuals. This right is sacrosanct and must be preserved at any cost. The difficulty arises when an initial peaceful protest turns violent, resulting in bodily harm either to the other citizen as well as the police personnel along with destruction of public property," the affidavit said.

At least one reported instance has sharpened the allegations. The Bihar government separately told the Supreme Court that a police official who fired an AK-47 during the July 25 student protests in Siwan did so only after he was surrounded by the crowd, and that no protester was injured due to that firing. In an affidavit filed on August 17, the state said constable Abhishek Kumar "got trapped in the crowd" and fired four rounds from his AK-47 "in the air", and that he has been suspended for "undesired conduct" and faces departmental proceedings.

What it means for the protest cases

For students facing FIRs, the practical question is whether Tuesday's hearing changes anything. The August 3 direction already allows states to close or withdraw FIRs against NEET protesters; what the police-excesses pleas add is the demand that the other side — the conduct of the police, be examined too.

If the court acts on the pleas, it could order inquiries into police conduct, or direct compensation or action against officers. The Delhi Police's offer to have its action examined by a court-appointed committee suggests the court is weighing exactly such a mechanism.

Today's hearing asks the Supreme Court to decide how far police conduct during the NEET protests will be examined and, by extension, whether the state's response to protesting students will face scrutiny even as the FIRs against those students are being wound down. The outcome will be updated after the court rises.

(With PTI Inputs)