The Supreme Court has established a five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) to conduct an independent investigation into the student protest violence reported across the country, including at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. Justice R. Subhash Reddy, former Supreme Court judge, will chair the committee tasked with examining claims of brutality and misconduct by police and protesters alike.
Alongside Justice Reddy, the panel includes:
– Ravi Shankar Jha, former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
– Justice Shalinder Kaur, ex-judge of the Delhi High Court
– Rishi Kumar Shukla, former CBI Director
– Dr. L.R. Bishnoi, retired Director General of Police, Meghalaya
## Scope of the Investigation
The court asked the HPEC to scrutinize allegations of excessive force by police, including use of pellet guns, electric batons, lathi charges, tear gas, and unmarked or plain-clothes personnel engaging in violence during peaceful protests. Allegations also involve unauthorized surveillance, targeting and harassment of female protesters, and violation of rights to privacy and peaceful assembly.
Respondents asked the committee to weigh claims of violence by protesters—such as damage to public and private property and injuries to security forces—as well as the emotional and mental trauma suffered by law enforcement families during the protests.
## Mandate and Terms of Reference
Key areas the HPEC will examine:
– Whether police and security agencies used disproportionate force, and whether adequate warning or restraint was applied.
– Identification of officers involved, including the requirement for visible nameplates and proper uniforms during arrests or use of force.
– The extent and lawfulness of surveillance and monitoring applied to assemblies.
– Complaints of harassment, molestation, and secondary victimisation of women among protesters.
– Adequacy of medical assistance and possibilities for compensation for those impacted.
– Whether blanket orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are being misused to prevent peaceful assemblies unnecessarily.
From the respondents’ side, the investigation will also consider:
– Injuries sustained by police and paramilitary personnel while maintaining public order.
– Damage to public installations, vehicles, government property, and private assets during the protests.
## Court’s Finding and Actions Ordering Evidence
The three-judge bench—Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana—noted that from the earliest submissions, both petitioners and respondents had put forward enough credible allegations to justify a neutral, high-power inquiry. The bench emphasized the urgency due to reports of serious injuries, possible abuse of power, and alleged violations of constitutional norms.
The Supreme Court directed authorities to preserve:
– CCTV and drone footage
– Recordings from body-worn cameras and other video coverage
– Wireless communication logs and PCR calls related to protests
These materials must be handed over to the HPEC, without obstruction. Moreover, agencies may submit documentation and suggest witnesses—including anonymous ones—to safeguard identities.
## Reporting Timeline
The Court has ordered that the HPEC deliver its inaugural interim report focusing on allegations of excessive force and targeted violence against female protesters “at the earliest.” The matter is next scheduled to be reviewed on September 10, 2026.
It clarified that forming this committee does not impede internal disciplinary or administrative proceedings already in progress against individuals under scrutiny.
## Significance and Broader Implications
This development marks a significant moment in ongoing debate over protest policing, civil rights, and government accountability in India. By instituting an independent committee led by respected former judges and law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court seeks to create space for examining serious questions about how state agencies manage dissent, especially when it risks infringing constitutional freedoms. The terms of reference underscore the need to balance state authority with protection of civil liberties including right to assemble, free speech, privacy, and due process.
As protests increasingly rely on real-time surveillance, public records, and mass mobilization, the direction from the top court to preserve technological evidence and ensure visible accountability mechanisms may set precedents for handling similar clashes in the future.
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article.
