The Supreme Court has agreed to hear on Monday (July 20, 2026) two fresh petitions alleging police excesses during the July 20 crackdown on student protesters in the national capital.
The development came hours after Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant clarified in open court on Friday that no petition had been filed on the issue earlier and criticized careless reports that the court had refused to list such a case.
The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), which is leading the protests, announced on Friday (July 24) that it would launch a website to store videos and photographs documenting alleged police brutality during the crackdown. It said this material will form the basis of legal proceedings seeking registration of FIR against the police personnel allegedly responsible for the violence.
Meanwhile, later The Hindu The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on Friday (July 24) said two unarmed protesters were injured by bullets allegedly fired by Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel and was “verifying media reports”. A CRPF official said no action has been taken yet as the truth is still being ascertained.
Earlier, Delhi Police had denied the use of pellet guns against the protesters. The RAF, a special anti-riot force, was deployed under the overall control of Delhi Police during the July 20 operation. One of the injured protesters, 19-year-old Sahil Lochab, is in danger of losing the vision in his right eye after a bullet hit his pupil. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi met him on Friday.
Earlier in the day, during hours when lawyers drew the court’s attention to matters requiring urgent listing, the Chief Justice clarified that the top court had received only a representation from one lawyer on Wednesday (July 22, 2026) and no petition had been filed. The comments came two days after the court refused to take the initiative spontaneously Proceeding on an oral request made by advocate Narendra Mishra to take cognizance of alleged police brutality during the July 20 Parliament march organized by CJP.
“By 10 in the morning, I tried to find out, no case was filed… Not a single page has been filed in the Supreme Court. It was a representation… How can I treat the representation as a writ petition? And people start reporting it casually,” the Chief Justice remarked while presiding over a bench also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
Expressing concern over the reportage, the Chief Justice said that some sections of the media were engaged in “reckless” reporting. “In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a case was filed, and the media, completely absolved of all responsibility, is casually reporting wrongly that the Chief Justice refused to list the case,” he said.
‘excessive force’
Later in the afternoon, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned before the bench that the two petitions had been formally instituted and had been given diary numbers. Demanding their immediate listing, he said police personnel continued to use “excessive force” against student protesters.
“There are two petitions related to the violence that took place across the country during the student protests. We have diary numbers, properly constituted petitions. The states are parties. The police is using excessive force against children. This is going on unabated,” he told the bench.
Mr Sankaranarayanan urged the court to immediately intervene, saying alleged police violence continued on a daily basis. “This is happening on a daily basis…some controls are necessary. The court is standing between us and the police,” he said.
Agreeing to hear the case on Monday (July 27, 2026), the Chief Justice said, “Let it be listed. We will consider it.”
newspaper jurisdiction
During the hearing on Wednesday (July 22, 2026), Mr Mishra referred to a letter petition addressed to the Chief Justice of India and urged the court to investigate the videos that allegedly showed police personnel attacking unarmed protesters. He had also offered to place the video before the court. However, the bench led by the Chief Justice rejected the request, with the Chief Justice telling the lawyer not to “waste” the court’s time. The CJI had said, “We are not interested in the videos. We do not have time to watch them.”
Attempts to invoke the apex court’s jurisdiction through letters date back to the late 1970s, when the court began to relax traditional rules. locus standiAllows public-spirited individuals to approach constitutional courts on behalf of aggrieved individuals to protect fundamental rights and maintain the rule of law. This led to the development of the court’s epistolary jurisdiction, whereby informal letters and postcards addressed to judges were treated as writ petitions, with the aim of improving access to justice for marginalized people who had little or no meaningful access to the courts.
One of the earliest examples was Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration (1979), where the court treated a letter from a prisoner alleging custodial torture as a writ petition and issued directions to curb such practices.
against plainclothes personnel
One of the petitions filed before the apex court has sought directions to regulate police action during public protests, including a ban on deployment of personnel in plain clothes for crowd-control duties and guidelines governing the exercise of powers under Section 163 of the Indian Civil Security Code (BNSS), which empowers an executive magistrate to act where “there is sufficient ground to proceed under this section and to immediately prevent or expedite The solution is desirable”.
The petition states, “The present generation of youth is experiencing deprivation, unemployment, expensive education, loneliness, and a feeling of alienation and betrayal by their own government within their own country (violation of Article 16). They are peacefully presenting their legitimate demands before the government (Article 19). However, in return, they are getting lathi charge, tear gas, pellet guns and the dignity of peacefully protesting female students is being violated. Is going (violation of Article 21).”
The petition further states that at least 60 protesters were injured during the police action, and argues that there is a need for an independent and impartial investigation into the allegations.
Delhi HC will hear in September
The Delhi High Court is also hearing petitions related to alleged police violence during the July 20 protests. On Wednesday it sought response from the central government and Delhi Police on petitions alleging excessive use of force against students and other protesters during the Parliament march. The court also directed the authorities to preserve all relevant material, including CCTV footage and video recordings, related to the protest and the subsequent police action. The next hearing of the case is to be held on September 11.
During the hearing, Mr. Sankaranarayanan, appearing for petitioner Umesh Kumar, submitted that he has personally examined around 130 videos of the July 20 protests, and they show widespread use of force by police personnel.
internet suspension
On Friday, the high court agreed to hear a separate plea challenging the suspension of internet services within a 1.5 km radius of Jantar Mantar, where the protests are going on. The plea followed the central government’s direction to telecom service providers on Thursday to suspend internet services in parts of central Delhi from 4 pm to midnight under the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024. The government said the measure was necessary in the interest of public safety and to prevent a public emergency.
However, the high court refused to entertain a plea seeking a National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigation into the CJP-led protests. A bench headed by Chief Justice DK Upadhyay said directing an NIA investigation was beyond the court’s jurisdiction. The bench orally said, “You are asking us to form an opinion as to whether this is an appropriate matter…this task has been entrusted to the Central Government.”
Earlier, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (ADCP) Sandeep Lamba, who was seen slapping a woman in a video on July 20, was removed from protest-related duties around Jantar Mantar and sent to his native posting place in north-east Delhi.
Another video shows a Delhi Police officer in uniform, with “three stars” on his shoulder indicating he is an inspector, allegedly molesting a woman with a wooden stick. In the video, another uniformed officer, probably a head constable, wearing a bulletproof jacket and hiding his face with clothes, is seen hitting a young woman with a baton as she moves away from the melee.
Meanwhile, Union ministers JP Nadda and Jitendra Singh met the CJP delegation at the Constitution Club in Delhi on Friday (July 24, 2026) for the second round of talks aimed at resolving the ongoing protests. However, the CJP has said that its demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan will remain unchanged.
