The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC), constituted to investigate allegations of police excesses during the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)-led student protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar in July, to submit its first fact-finding report within one month.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the committee should proceed with its inquiry on the basis of the material already available before it and seek responses from the concerned authorities and individuals wherever necessary.
The Court also made it clear that representations and supporting documents submitted by the petitioners, including material placed on behalf of the alleged victims, must be duly considered by the committee.
Observing that the inquiry should not be kept pending indefinitely, the Bench indicated that the HPEC could submit an interim report dealing with the issues identified for priority consideration, without waiting for the entire investigation to conclude.
The Court further expressed its expectation that relevant portions of the committee’s reports would ordinarily be made available to the parties, except where disclosure was warranted to be withheld for reasons of confidentiality.
During the hearing, the Bench took note of the limited number of complaints received by the committee despite the creation of a dedicated online portal and email facility for victims to submit their grievances.
The Court observed that the portal had been operational for approximately three weeks and that the committee had held a sitting at its office on October 26. Public notices had also been issued through print and electronic media, while protesters who had earlier lodged complaints were contacted.
However, only one complainant appeared before the committee on October 29 and submitted an affidavit. The Bench also noted that some police personnel had appeared before the panel.
The Court emphasised that the inquiry could progress meaningfully only if those affected came forward with their complaints and supporting evidence.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for the petitioners, expressed concern over the apparent lack of progress in the inquiry since the committee’s constitution in August. He submitted that the principal concern was the alleged brutality against protesters and questioned whether any departmental proceedings or criminal cases had been initiated against the police personnel allegedly involved.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the committee’s report could be examined with the assistance of the amicus curiae and the panel itself, stressing the need to preserve the sanctity of the inquiry and prevent its contents from becoming the subject of public debate before judicial consideration.
Hariharan, however, opposed the suggestion of withholding the report from the petitioners, pointing out that the Supreme Court had previously expressed reservations about the practice of sealed-cover submissions.
CJI Surya Kant clarified that the Court would first examine the report independently and thereafter identify the issues on which the petitioners could assist it. He also distinguished the present arrangement from the conventional sealed-cover procedure adopted by government authorities, noting that the HPEC had been constituted by the Supreme Court itself.
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover informed the Court that representations had been submitted even before the dedicated portal was established, followed by further submissions through the prescribed mechanism. She also raised concerns over the absence of FIRs based on the complaints.
The Chief Justice indicated that such representations could be formally placed before the Court so that they could be considered as complaints.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan suggested that the committee should also consider the detailed material already forming part of the pending petitions instead of insisting that every affected person separately submit the same evidence.
Responding to the suggestion, the CJI said the Court could clarify that lawyers representing the petitioners would be permitted to transmit electronic copies of their petitions and supporting material, including video recordings, directly to the committee.
The Bench also encouraged lawyers representing the victims to facilitate their appearance before the panel and request the committee to summon them wherever necessary.
The five-member HPEC was constituted by the Supreme Court on August 18 under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy.
The committee has been tasked with examining allegations of disproportionate police action against protesters during the July demonstrations, as well as claims of violence against police personnel and damage to public property.
Among the issues specifically identified for priority examination are the alleged use of pellet guns, targeted violence and harassment of women protesters, and instances of excessive force and destruction of property attributed to either side.
The Court had also empowered the committee to examine the possibility of interim compensation for those injured during the demonstrations.
During Thursday’s hearing, allegations were also raised regarding the absence of disciplinary proceedings against police officers accused of misconduct.
Justice Bagchi clarified that the constitution of the inquiry committee did not prevent police authorities or their superiors from initiating appropriate action against personnel found to have violated applicable rules.
The Solicitor General, meanwhile, cautioned against demoralising police officers for exercising reasonable force while dealing with unlawful assemblies, adding that the authorities would act if the committee’s findings established misconduct.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on December 2, 2026.
The petitions arise from the protests organised by the CJP against recurring examination paper leaks, including the NEET controversy. On July 20, police and Rapid Action Force personnel allegedly used lathi-charge, tear gas and pellet guns to disperse protesters attempting to march towards Parliament.
The demonstrations had also seen Sonam Wangchuk join the agitation in solidarity with the protesters and undertake a hunger strike. The protests were subsequently called off following the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on July 25.
The post CJP protests: Supreme Court directs inquiry panel to submit first report on police excesses within one month appeared first on India Legal.