Skip to content

    Supreme Court Refuses to Reconstitute Panel Probing CJP Protest Violence, Directs Police Protection for Minor Protester

    SC News

    1. Home
    2. /SC News

    Supreme Court Refuses to Reconstitute Panel Probing CJP Protest Violence, Directs Police Protection for Minor Protester

    The Supreme Court declined an application to reconstitute the High-Powered Enquiry Committee examining violence during CJP student protests, terming objections premature, and directed Delhi Police to protect a 14-year-old protester and her family facing threats.

    Hydar Choudhury
    Sep 16, 2026·3 min read
    Supreme Court Refuses to Reconstitute Panel Probing CJP Protest Violence, Directs Police Protection for Minor Protester

    This article was prepared with AI assistance and reviewed by the Jurisight Desk.

    The Supreme Court recently refused to reconstitute the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) constituted to examine the violence that occurred during the July Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) student protests at Jantar Mantar. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana declined an application filed by certain parties seeking reconstitution of the panel, observing that the objections raised were premature and precipitate.

    The Bench expressed disquiet over the manner in which aspersions had been cast upon the HPEC, stating that such criticisms were based on mere conjecture as the Committee had only just begun its enquiry. It emphasized that the HPEC was constituted to assist the Court with the highest standards of fairness, transparency, and a dispassionate approach, and was not created to espouse the causes of any party before it.

    The five-member HPEC was constituted by the Court on August 18 and is chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy. The Committee has been tasked with examining allegations of excessive police force against protestors at Jantar Mantar and elsewhere, as well as violence against security personnel. The Committee will report directly to the Court and function under its supervision.

    In its recent order, the Court issued several additional directions to the HPEC. It directed the Committee to first examine the use of pellet guns, targeted violence and harassment of female protestors, and excessive violence and destruction of property on either side. Broader constitutional questions were to be decided by the Court at the appropriate stage. The identities of vulnerable witnesses are to be kept confidential with utmost confidentiality over their statements and evidence. A separate online portal may be created for witnesses to submit documents and evidence confidentially. Nodal counsel is to assist only the Court and not act as a line of communication between the HPEC, the Court, and the parties.

    Advertisement

    The Court appointed Senior Advocate Dr. Monika Gusain and Advocate-on-Record C Solomon as amici curiae to act as independent arbiters between the parties. It also directed the HPEC to appoint a Member Secretary and submit its first report at the earliest.

    Regarding concerns raised about a particular 14-year-old protestor, the Court recorded submissions that several threats had been made to her life and that of her family, occasioning grave and continuing apprehension as to their safety. It noted allegations that the Delhi Police had taken no action against the alleged miscreants and proceeded to direct the police to provide necessary protection to the child and her family.

    The Court directed the Delhi Police to assess the threat perception and provide the necessary protection to the said child and her family to secure her safety, and to expeditiously conduct an investigation against such anti-social elements allegedly threatening or harassing her and her family. The Delhi Police was further directed to file a status report regarding the same before the next date of hearing, which is scheduled for October 9.

    Explore related legal coverage

    Continue with reporting and analysis connected to this article.

    Browse SC News

    More from this court

    • Delayed Chargesheet Can Quash Criminal Case, Supreme Court Says

      Supreme court

    • Last Seen Theory In Criminal Cases: Supreme Court Explains

      Supreme court

    • Appellate Courts Can Grant Interim Relief Even If Suit Is Dismissed By Trial Court: Supreme Court

      Supreme court

    • Dowry Is A Constitutional Wrong, Supreme Court Says

      Supreme court

    Related legal topics

    • UAPA: Order Barring Disclosure Of Witness Statements Must Record Specific Reasons For Each Witness, Rules Kerala High Court

      Witness Protection

    • Umar Khalid Files Review Petition in SC Against Bail Denial

      Delhi Police

    Advertisement

    Hydar Choudhury

    See more from Hydar →
    Jurisight logoJurisight logo

    Simplifying legal knowledge for professionals and citizens. Your daily source for Supreme Court, High Court, and Business Law updates.

    Platform

    HomeAll ArticlesTop NewsSC UpdatesHC Updates

    Categories

    Business LawConstitutionalCriminal LawCivil LawKnow Your Law

    Weekly Digest

    Join 15,000+ others and get the week's most important legal updates.

    © 2026 Jurisight. All rights reserved.
    Privacy PolicyCookie PolicyCookie ConsentLegal Disclaimer