As per the notification provided, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) directed telecom service providers to suspend mobile internet access in areas within a 1.5-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar on July 23. The order cited “public emergency”, “public safety” and the need to prevent “incitement to the commission of any offence” as grounds for restricting connectivity. The suspension, initially scheduled to remain in force until 4 pm, was later extended till midnight.

However, the disruption was not confined to the protest site. Areas including Mandi House, located nearly two kilometres from Jantar Mantar, also reported connectivity issues despite not being the centre of the demonstrations. According to The Indian Express, the shutdown affected office-goers, residents, businesses and commuters who happened to be in the area.

The consequences were immediate. Digital payments through UPI stopped working for several small businesses, forcing shopkeepers and street vendors to depend on cash transactions. App-based transport services, online communication platforms and navigation services were also affected. A roadside tea vendor told The Indian Express that his business suffered because customers were unable to make digital payments.

The latest shutdown came days after similar restrictions were imposed on July 20, when the student-led “Chalo Sansad” march was organised near Jantar Mantar during the opening of Parliament’s Monsoon Session. The march, called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), sought to highlight concerns over alleged NEET irregularities, examination accountability and student distress. Notably, the July 20 notification for internet shutdown had not been made public on the same day.

Authorities refused permission for the march, imposed prohibitory restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and deployed heavy security around central Delhi. Routes leading towards Parliament were sealed, while metro stations including Patel Chowk, Rajiv Chowk and Janpath were temporarily closed.

Challenge before Delhi High Court

The legality of the shutdowns has now been challenged before the Delhi High Court. A public interest litigation filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC.in) has questioned the mobile internet suspension orders issued by the MHA on July 17, 20, 22 and 23 around Jantar Mantar.

As reported by LiveLaw, the petition argues that the orders are unconstitutional, disproportionate and fail to meet the safeguards prescribed under the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024.

The petition contends that the authorities relied on vague references to “public emergency” and “public safety” without disclosing specific material demonstrating an imminent threat that justified cutting internet access. It argues that the government failed to establish why a complete suspension of mobile internet was necessary or whether less restrictive alternatives were considered.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the plea states that restrictions on internet access must satisfy the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. The judgment had held that indefinite internet shutdowns were impermissible and that any restriction must be subject to judicial scrutiny and periodic review.

The petition also challenges the lack of public disclosure of the suspension orders, arguing that affected citizens cannot effectively challenge restrictions if the basis for such orders remains inaccessible. It has sought directions requiring authorities to publish shutdown orders before or at the time of enforcement and has demanded production of official records, including file notings, intelligence inputs and Review Committee proceedings.

Under the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, internet suspension orders can ordinarily be issued only by the Union Home Secretary or State Home Secretary, with limited exceptions allowing an officer of Joint Secretary rank to act in unavoidable circumstances. Such orders are also subject to review mechanisms.

The Delhi shutdowns have once again brought into focus the difficult balance between maintaining public order and protecting constitutional freedoms. While authorities argue that temporary internet restrictions prevent misinformation, mobilisation of violence and security threats, critics maintain that broad shutdowns risk becoming a disproportionate response to peaceful public assembly.

The issue is no longer limited to a single protest site. It raises a fundamental question for a digital democracy: when citizens gather to exercise their rights to peaceful assembly and expression, can the State respond by cutting off a basic channel through which people communicate, organise and access information?

Related:

Youth Uprising: A protest, a brute crackdown, a continuing countrywide response

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

A deleted tweet, an NSA order, and the shadow of past crackdowns

Brute Police Action: Mumbai’s crackdown on protestors in solidarity with CJP & Student Groups, AISF, SFI & AISA

The post Jantar Mantar Offline: Six internet shutdowns in a week appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Detailed may be read here, here, here and here.

Across the country, senior advocates, bar associations and hundreds of lawyers have condemned the alleged police violence against students, describing the crackdown as an assault on the fundamental freedoms of speech, assembly and democratic participation. More than 650 lawyers, along with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and Bombay Bar Association (BBA), have demanded accountability and an independent inquiry into allegations of disproportionate force.

The legal fraternity’s intervention is significant because the issue is not merely whether individual protesters were injured—it concerns whether the machinery of the State crossed constitutional limits while responding to a citizens’ movement. Allegations of lathi charges, use of force against women and minors, assault on journalists and lawyers, and the filing of criminal cases against protesters have raised serious questions about whether policing measures were aimed at maintaining public order or suppressing dissent.

The Delhi High Court’s order directing preservation of CCTV footage, videography, PCR records and other material connected with the incident marks an important judicial safeguard. By ensuring that evidence is not lost, altered or rendered unavailable, the Court has kept open the possibility of meaningful scrutiny of the allegations.

The Delhi Police has defended its actions by alleging violence and vandalism by sections of protesters. However, the broader constitutional question remains: when citizens—particularly students—take to the streets to demand accountability from institutions, can the State answer dissent with force?

Proceedings before the Delhi High Court on excessive force by Police

On July 22, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice on multiple PILs alleging excessive force by the Delhi Police, and directed preservation of all CCTV footage, videography, PCR logs and related records connected with the July 20 incident. The Union Government and Delhi Police have been granted four weeks to respond, reported LiveLaw.

The development is crucial because the allegations before the Court centre on the manner in which State force was deployed against protesters and whether established safeguards governing crowd control were followed. While the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the authenticity of the videos relied upon by the petitioners, the direction to preserve evidence marks an important judicial safeguard. In cases involving alleged police excesses, where the State machinery itself is accused of violating citizens’ rights, the availability of independent and contemporaneous records becomes essential for ensuring accountability.

Petitioners allege force far beyond constitutional limits: Appearing before the Court, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan argued that students assembled at Jantar Mantar were exercising rights protected under Articles 19 and 21 when police allegedly resorted to force that was not regulatory but punitive. He alleged that protesters were beaten with lathis fitted with nails, struck with electric batons, fired upon with pellets, and that more than ninety protesters sustained injuries. Equally significant were the procedural violations alleged before the Court.

According to the petitioners, police neither issued lawful proclamations directing dispersal nor followed the established legal sequence requiring warnings before force is used. Hariharan argued that any force deployed against assemblies must remain proportionate and strictly necessary—not punitive. He also sought an independent investigation, arguing that the Delhi Police could not credibly investigate allegations against its own officers.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that his legal team had examined approximately 130 videos documenting the crackdown. He alleged that several persons using force lacked identification badges and referred to footage purportedly showing Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba striking a woman protester. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, he argued that police had ignored settled constitutional safeguards governing dispersal of peaceful assemblies.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, argued that the march had been publicly announced well in advance and remained peaceful for nearly twenty days. Referring to Section 149 BNSS, he reminded the Court that the law itself obligates police officers to use “as little force” and inflict “as little injury” as possible while dispersing assemblies.

Police defend crackdown: Representing the Delhi Police and the Union Government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju defended the police response, arguing that the petitions presented a selective account of the July 20 events and relied heavily on social media videos whose authenticity, according to him, could not be presumed.

The ASG contended that the protests had escalated into violence, with sections of the crowd allegedly engaging in stone-pelting, vandalism and attacks on police personnel. He submitted that police officers had also sustained injuries and that public and private property had been damaged during the march. According to the police, the situation required intervention to restore public order.

Raju further argued that the petitioners had suppressed material facts and relied upon edited or potentially manipulated recordings circulating online. Describing the petitions as “publicity petitions” with alleged ulterior motives, he questioned whether such matters should be entertained under the Court’s public interest jurisdiction.

The ASG also challenged the maintainability of the PILs, arguing that persons claiming to have suffered injuries or assault should approach appropriate criminal remedies, including seeking directions from a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than directly approaching the High Court.

He further relied upon the imposition of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing that authorities had acted within the legal framework while managing the assembly.

Court refuses to reduce allegations to individual complaints: The Bench, however, appeared reluctant to accept that allegations involving widespread claims of police excess could simply be treated as individual grievances requiring separate FIRs. Responding to the State’s argument, the Court observed: “Is it a case of some isolated incidents? Perhaps not. If it was an unlawful assembly, as you say, there is law on how to deal with it. If these issues are raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should lodge an FIR?”

The observation was significant because it recognised that allegations involving the conduct of State authorities affecting a large number of citizens may raise broader constitutional questions beyond individual criminal complaints.

The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, where the Court held that allegations of excessive use of force by authorities resulting in violations of fundamental rights can be examined through public law remedies. The reference reinforced that judicial review of State action is not barred merely because individual criminal remedies may also exist.

It is crucial to highlight here that the matter has been listed for September 11—more than seven weeks after the July 20 crackdown. This issue does not concern a private dispute or a concluded incident; they involve allegations of State violence against citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest, questions of police accountability, and the legality of the force used by law-enforcement agencies. These are issues that go to the heart of constitutional governance and demand urgent judicial scrutiny. Every passing week without substantive consideration delays accountability, prolongs uncertainty for those allegedly injured, and weakens the constitutional promise of timely judicial protection against abuse of State power.

Before the evidence came judicial scrutiny

The judiciary’s initial response to the allegations also became the subject of public debate. Before the Delhi High Court agreed to hear the PILs and ordered preservation of crucial evidence, an earlier request for urgent listing before it had reportedly been met with the oral observation: “Don’t drag Court into all this.”

A day later, Advocate Narendra Mishra orally mentioned before the Supreme Court a letter representation addressed to the Chief Justice concerning the alleged police excesses during the July 20 protests. Responding to the mention, the Court reportedly observed: “Don’t waste our time, don’t waste your time.”

When counsel stated that he possessed videos documenting the police action, the Court is also reported to have remarked: “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch.”

Subsequently, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, on July 24, clarified in open court that media reports stating he had refused to list a petition were “completely false.” As reported by LiveLaw, the CJI explained that no writ petition had, in fact, been filed before the Supreme Court at that stage. What had been placed before him was only a letter representation sent by a lawyer, which, in the absence of a formally instituted petition, could not be treated as a writ petition. He criticised sections of the media for reporting otherwise and described such reporting as “irresponsible and reckless.”

That clarification is important. It corrects the record on the procedural position before the Supreme Court: the Court was not declining to list a duly instituted writ petition because none had yet been filed. However, the clarification does not entirely answer the broader constitutional concern that followed the oral exchange in open court. It is pertinent to highlight here that the CJI bench did not use its suo-moto powers to take cognizance of the case. The issue is not merely whether a petition had been formally instituted, but the language employed when serious allegations of State violence were first brought to the Court’s attention.

The allegations related to the use of force by State authorities against citizens exercising their fundamental rights, including claims of excessive police violence, injuries to protesters, assault on women and restrictions on the exercise of rights under Article 19. Even where a formal petition is absent, constitutional courts are often the first institutions to which citizens turn when alleging abuse of State power.

A constitutional court’s legitimacy rests not only on its eventual judgments but also on the confidence it inspires that allegations of fundamental rights violations—particularly against the State—will receive careful and impartial consideration. The concern raised by many observers was therefore not procedural alone, but institutional: whether the Court’s initial response reflected the constitutional seriousness of the allegations being placed before it.

That concern becomes even more pronounced when contrasted with the Delhi High Court’s subsequent order directing preservation of CCTV footage, videography and other contemporaneous records. The preservation of evidence does not validate the allegations, but it acknowledges that they are sufficiently serious to warrant judicial examination. If preserving evidence is necessary to determine whether constitutional limits were crossed, then the allegations themselves plainly merit careful scrutiny rather than summary dismissal.

Ultimately, the question extends beyond one oral exchange. It concerns the role of constitutional courts when allegations of excessive State force emerge. In a constitutional democracy, judicial engagement at such moments is not merely procedural—it is integral to maintaining public confidence that the exercise of State power will remain subject to constitutional accountability.

The Court also hears an NIA probe plea

In a parallel development, the Delhi High Court agreed to hear a separate PIL seeking transfer of the investigation into the protests to the National Investigation Agency. Filed by former Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha office-bearer Satish Kumar Aggarwal, the petition alleges that the movement was not genuinely student-led but part of a broader conspiracy involving foreign-funded organisations, opposition political leaders and anti-national elements, reported LiveLaw.

The petition questions the participation of Sonam Wangchuk, refers to his alleged international associations, names several opposition leaders and seeks transfer of all Delhi Police investigations to the NIA. On July 24, the said appeal as dismissed by the bench after holding that “We can’t decide on NIA investigation. It’s the Centre’s job.”

The bar stands with the students

Perhaps the most significant institutional response to the July 20 crackdown has come not from political parties or civil society organisations, but from India’s legal community. In an unusually broad and coordinated intervention, senior advocates, bar associations and hundreds of lawyers across the country have publicly questioned the legality and proportionality of the Delhi Police’s actions, framing the issue as one that strikes at the heart of India’s constitutional commitment to free expression, peaceful assembly and the rule of law.

In a joint public statement signed by more than 650 lawyers, including Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Raju Ramachandran, Chander Uday Singh, Sanjay Hegde, Huzefa Ahmadi, Rebecca M. John, Nandita Rao, Sanjay Parikh, Anjana Prakash, Jayant Bhushan, Shadan Farasat, Warisha Farasat, Sumita Hazarika, Sanjay Ghose and advocates Prashant Bhushan, Vrinda Grover, along with hundreds of other members of the Bar, the signatories condemned what they described as the use of violence against peaceful student protesters.

The statement characterised the police action as “an attack on the principles of free expression, human dignity and the right to dissent,” arguing that young people demanding accountability over repeated examination failures were met not with dialogue or democratic engagement but with force. Reports by LiveLaw stated that expressing solidarity with those allegedly “harmed, intimidated and traumatised” during the crackdown, the lawyers called for an impartial inquiry and urged constitutional authorities to ensure that those responsible for any excessive use of force are held accountable.

Importantly, the statement situates the issue within a broader constitutional framework rather than treating it as an isolated law-and-order incident. It reminds the State that peaceful protest is a democratic right, not a privilege granted at the discretion of the executive, and argues that Parliament must remain accessible to the voices of citizens, observing that it “is not an ivory tower that should be beyond the reach of its citizens.” The intervention reflects a rare consensus across different ideological and professional strands of the legal community that allegations of police brutality against peaceful demonstrators warrant independent scrutiny rather than dismissal.

The condemnation has not been confined to individual lawyers. Both the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have separately issued statements calling for an independent inquiry into allegations of excessive police force during the protests. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has also publicly criticised the police response and supported the demand for an impartial investigation, adding further weight to calls for accountability from within the legal profession.

Adding to these interventions, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who is also the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, addressed a detailed representation to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Union Home Ministry, seeking a time-bound judicial inquiry headed by a sitting or former Supreme Court judge into the police action. Singh alleged that the use of force extended beyond protesters to lawyers, journalists, medical volunteers, women and minors. Referring to reports published by The Wire, Newslaundry, Scroll and independent journalists, he argued that the police action appeared to violate the principles governing crowd control under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Delhi Police Manual, including allegations of lathi blows above the waist and officers operating without visible identification badges. He also sought the suspension of the Delhi Police Commissioner pending an independent inquiry, arguing that repeated examination failures had left students with few democratic avenues other than peaceful protest.

The complete SCBA resolution may be read here.

The complete SCAORA resolution may be read here.

Bombay Bar Association: Democratic engagement cannot be replaced by force

The Bombay Bar Association (BBA) has also issued one of the most detailed institutional responses to the events of July 20, placing the controversy squarely within the framework of constitutional rights and democratic governance.

In a statement issued by its President, Senior Advocate Nitin Thakker, the Association described the issues raised by the protesting students concerning repeated examination irregularities and the future of India’s education system as matters of “immense public importance” with far-reaching consequences for the country’s youth.

Referring to videos and media reports of the police action, reported LiveLaw, the BBA observed that if reports depicting lathi charges, tear gas and the use of force against students were accurate, such conduct “cannot be countenanced in a society governed by the rule of law.” It stressed that law-enforcement authorities are expected to act with restraint, proportionality and due regard for the constitutional rights and dignity of every citizen, particularly when dealing with assemblies involving students exercising their democratic rights.

The Association reaffirmed that the right to peaceful assembly and peaceful dissent forms an integral part of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, observing that peaceful protest is “not merely a constitutional right but an essential feature of democratic governance.” At the same time, it unequivocally condemned any incidents of violence, vandalism or destruction of public or private property by any section of protesters, emphasising that constitutional freedoms must always be exercised peacefully and responsibly.

Notably, the BBA also expressed concern over what it described as intimidatory measures, including the use of force and the registration of criminal cases against protesters, cautioning that such responses risk undermining democratic participation rather than facilitating resolution of public grievances.

Calling for a constructive resolution, the Association urged both the Government and student representatives to move away from confrontation and towards “open, sincere and meaningful dialogue”, arguing that concerns affecting the educational futures of millions of students deserve substantive engagement rather than a purely law-and-order response. In doing so, the BBA reinforced an emerging consensus within the legal community that constitutional democracies are strengthened not by suppressing dissent, but by responding to it through accountability, dialogue and adherence to the rule of law.

The statement may be read below.

Bombay High Court lawyers challenge restrictions on protest, call police action unconstitutional

In a joint statement issued on July 24, 141 advocates practising before the Bombay High Court condemned the police action against protesters at Shivaji Park, Mumbai, and demanding the withdrawal of prohibitory orders restricting public assemblies. The advocates criticised the detention of protesters, including minors, who had gathered in support of the student-led agitation at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, over alleged examination irregularities and demanded greater accountability from authorities.

The lawyers said that the apparent basis for the police action was the absence of permission to hold a protest at Chaityabhoomi. However, they argued that the lack of prior permission cannot become a justification for suppressing the constitutional right to peaceful assembly.

The statement emphasised that the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution is not dependent upon the State’s discretion to permit dissent. “This freedom is rendered meaningless if under the guise of ‘regulation’ and ‘reasonable restrictions’, all protests are prohibited,” the advocates stated, reported Hindustan Times.

The signatories included several prominent senior advocates, including Janak Dwarkadas, Navroz Seervai, Gayatri Singh, Mihir Desai, Haresh Jagtiani, Yug Mohit Chaudhry and Dinyar Madon, who urged the Mumbai Police Commissioner to withdraw prohibitory orders issued under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

The lawyers also questioned the legality and transparency of the orders issued on July 3 and July 20, which imposed restrictions on assemblies, processions and the use of loudspeakers. They argued that orders affecting fundamental rights on such a wide scale require adequate publicity and cannot be invoked retrospectively to justify arrests or force against citizens.

“Prohibitory orders of such scale and import, which on their plain terms require to be given widespread publicity, cannot be passed surreptitiously and thereafter be pressed into service for strong armed action by law enforcement authorities,” the statement said as per the Hindustan Times report.

The advocates further raised concerns over what they described as a pattern of mass detentions and reliance on prohibitory powers without sufficient accountability. They argued that repeated use of restrictive orders creates a situation where citizens are forced to approach already burdened courts simply to challenge restrictions on basic democratic freedoms.

Referring to constitutional jurisprudence on assembly restrictions, the lawyers noted that authorities must demonstrate specific reasons for curtailing fundamental rights and must adopt the least restrictive measures necessary to address any genuine public order concerns. They argued that the police orders appeared to fall short of these requirements, thereby limiting meaningful judicial review.

The intervention adds another layer to the growing legal challenge against the manner in which authorities have responded to student protests. While legal bodies across the country have differed in their assessment of the protests, a significant section of the legal fraternity has focused on a common constitutional concern: that regulation of public assemblies cannot become a mechanism for preventing dissent or converting the requirement of permission into a blanket veto over the right to protest.

Lawyers gather at Supreme Court to read the Preamble in solidarity with students

In a symbolic assertion of constitutional values, a group of advocates assembled on the lawns of the Supreme Court on July 23 to collectively recite the Preamble to the Constitution under the banner “Save Democracy, Save Constitution”, expressing solidarity with students protesting the alleged NEET examination irregularities and condemning the authorities’ response to the demonstrations.

The gathering took place during the Court’s lunch recess and was led by Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Dr. S. Muralidhar, with Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, also in attendance. Several other senior members of the Bar, including Anand Grover, Anjana Prakash, Sanjay Ghose, Shadan Farasat, Arundhati Katju, Mahalakshmi Pavani, Nandita Rao, P.V. Surendranath, Manali Singhal, Sangeetha Bharti, P.V. Dinesh, Jayant Thakur and Advocate Vrinda Grover, participated alongside a large number of young lawyers. Many carried copies of the Constitution and the Indian tricolour while collectively reciting the Preamble, reaffirming the constitutional commitments to justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, reported LiveLaw.

Addressing the media after the event, Indira Jaising said the gathering was intended to stand “with the students” and to remind the judiciary of its constitutional responsibility to protect fundamental rights.

“We are here to stand with the students. We are here to stand on the side of justice… This concerns the rights of students, and it is the duty of lawyers to stand before the Supreme Court and demand justice for them. The role and function of the Supreme Court of India is to dispense justice.”

Several Supreme Court advocates assemble at the Court lawns to recite the Preamble to the Constitution as part of the ‘Save Democracy, Save Constitution’ campaign amidst the student protests in the national capital.#SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/CxT7DSOPav

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 23, 2026

Bar Council of India breaks ranks, backs State narrative

In contrast to the widespread concern expressed by senior advocates and bar associations over the alleged use of excessive force against students, the Bar Council of India (BCI) adopted a markedly different position, issuing a public appeal that largely echoed the State’s narrative surrounding the protests.

In a press statement titled “An Appeal to the Intellectuals of the Country”, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra alleged that the student movement had been “hijacked” by anti-national and anti-social elements and claimed that foreign adversaries were attempting to destabilise India by exploiting students’ grievances. The statement urged lawyers, teachers, intellectuals and parents to intervene to prevent young people from being “misled” into participating in unlawful activities.

The BCI went considerably further than calling for peace or restraint. Without placing any supporting material in the public domain, it alleged that foreign governments, including Pakistan, China and Bangladesh, were orchestrating coordinated social media campaigns to mislead Indian youth. It also claimed that “experts in stone pelting” had been brought from Jammu and Kashmir and other States to attack police personnel, and referred to an unnamed political leader allegedly receiving foreign funds to destabilise the country.

The statement did not cite any official investigation, intelligence findings or judicial determination supporting these serious allegations. Instead, it presented them as part of a broader narrative portraying the protests as a coordinated conspiracy rather than a student movement arising from concerns over repeated examination irregularities.

Notably, the BCI’s intervention made no reference to the widely circulated videos of alleged police violence, the injuries reported by protesters, or the allegations of excessive force now under consideration before the Delhi High Court. Nor did it acknowledge the growing demands from large sections of the legal fraternity for an independent inquiry into police conduct.

This position stands in sharp contrast to statements issued by the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, the Bombay Bar Association, and more than 650 lawyers, all of whom have emphasised constitutional protections for peaceful protest while calling for accountability wherever excessive force is established.

The divergence is significant. As the statutory body responsible for regulating the legal profession, the BCI’s intervention carries institutional weight. Rather than focusing on the constitutional questions raised by allegations of police excess or emphasising the rule of law through an impartial inquiry, its statement primarily advances claims of foreign conspiracy and anti-national influence—claims that, at the time of its release, had not been substantiated through any publicly available investigation or judicial finding.

In doing so, the BCI has positioned itself apart from much of the organised legal community, which has framed the events of July 20 primarily as a question of constitutional accountability, police restraint and the protection of democratic dissent, rather than one of national security.

“Anti-social and anti-national elements have entered this so-called student protests,” says Bar Council of India Chairperson & BJP Rajya Sabha MP Manan Kumar Mishra.

“Anti-social and anti-national forces have hijacked their agitation,” he says on #CJPMovement

He says… pic.twitter.com/WsNPwlHZV4

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 23, 2026

From a law-and-order issue to a constitutional reckoning

The developments following the July 20 crackdown have raised questions that extend beyond the immediate events of the protest. The legal proceedings now concern the manner in which State authorities exercise force against citizens and the safeguards that must govern such action.

The central issues before the courts are whether the police response was proportionate, whether established procedures for dispersing assemblies were followed, and whether allegations of excessive force by law-enforcement personnel require independent examination.

The proceedings also raise questions about accountability when allegations are made against State authorities themselves. If citizens allege violations of their fundamental rights during the exercise of democratic freedoms, the availability of an effective and impartial mechanism to examine those claims becomes essential.

The Delhi High Court’s direction to preserve CCTV footage, videography and other records ensures that the facts surrounding the incident can be assessed on the basis of evidence. The response from bar associations and hundreds of lawyers further reflects the broader concern that the handling of protests must remain within constitutional limits. At its core, the controversy is about the balance between maintaining public order and ensuring that the exercise of State power remains subject to constitutional scrutiny.

Related:

Youth Uprising: A protest, a brute crackdown, a continuing countrywide response

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

Brute Police Action: Mumbai’s crackdown on protestors in solidarity with CJP & Student Groups, AISF, SFI & AISA

The post Law fraternity rallies behind student protesters, condemns Delhi police crackdown appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Alam Khan outside his home in Barpeta

In an order delivered on January 6, 2026, the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Barpeta, presided over by Member Ms. Anurupa Dey, declared that Alam Khan is not a foreigner, concluding that he had successfully established his Indian citizenship through reliable documentary evidence, credible oral testimony and a consistent chain of records demonstrating that his family had been residing in Assam prior to the statutory cut-off date of March 25, 1971.

The decision represents another important legal victory for Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), which provided legal assistance to Alam Khan throughout the proceedings. The matter was argued by Advocate Abhijeet Choudhury, whose legal strategy addressed complex questions of lineage, documentary continuity and evidentiary burden arising under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Alam Khan along with CJP Team Assam, outside his home

However, the significance of this decision extends beyond one individual’s relief. The Tribunal’s order is noteworthy for its careful appreciation of evidence, its refusal to allow administrative lapses to prejudice the proceedee, and its recognition that family circumstances such as divorce and remarriage cannot, by themselves, undermine a genuine claim to Indian citizenship.

A citizenship dispute dating back more than two decades

Alam Khan’s case originated as IM(D)T Reference Case No. 1371 of 2000, when the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, referred him as a suspected foreigner. Following the Supreme Court’s order striking down the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, pending references under the IM(D)T regime stood transferred to Foreigners Tribunals for adjudication under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Alam Khan’s case was one such transferred proceeding.

Although the reference itself was over two decades old, Alam Khan received a fresh notice from the Tribunal only in October 2024, compelling him once again to defend his citizenship. For a daily wage labourer with limited financial means, this meant returning to prolonged litigation, collecting decades-old documents, tracing family records and proving facts that ordinarily no citizen is ever expected to establish.

The proceedings eventually culminated in January 2026, though the certified copy of the order reached Alam Khan only several months later. On July 16, 2026, CJP’s legal team, represented by Advocate Abhijeet Choudhury and Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh, formally handed over the order copy to him, marking the end of a legal battle spanning almost twenty-six years.

A case made difficult by family history rather than law

Unlike many Foreigners Tribunal proceedings where documentary continuity alone becomes the principal issue, Alam Khan’s case presented an additional layer of complexity arising from his family’s personal history. Alam Khan was born to Late Abdul Hakim Khan and Joytan Nessa. During his childhood, however, his parents divorced. Following the separation, his mother returned to her parental home, while Alam Khan continued residing with his father. Subsequently, his father remarried, and his stepmother, Jahura Khatun, became part of the family. These personal circumstances later translated into significant documentary complications.

By the time Alam Khan’s own name began appearing in electoral rolls, his father had already passed away. Consequently, subsequent voter lists reflected his residence alongside his stepmother rather than his biological mother. Since he did not possess a birth certificate, establishing the identity of his biological mother, and distinguishing her from his stepmother, became one of the most difficult factual questions before the Tribunal.

Ordinarily, such inconsistencies are capable of creating serious doubts in citizenship proceedings, particularly because the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act rests upon the proceedee. Had these inconsistencies remained unexplained, they could easily have undermined Alam Khan’s defence despite his genuine claim to citizenship. It was this challenge that shaped CJP’s legal strategy before the Tribunal.

CJP’s Legal Strategy: Addressing documentary gaps through credible evidence

Recognising that the case hinged not merely on producing documents but on explaining the circumstances behind apparent inconsistencies, CJP adopted a legal strategy that combined documentary evidence with carefully structured oral testimony. Representing Alam Khan, Advocate Abhijeet Choudhury sought to establish an unbroken narrative of lineage, residence and citizenship, while simultaneously demonstrating that the deficiencies in the documentary record arose from circumstances entirely beyond the proceedee’s control. The defence first addressed the most fundamental issue in the case—Alam Khan’s parentage.

To resolve the confusion arising from the divorce of his parents and his subsequent residence with his father and stepmother, CJP produced Joytan Nessa, Alam Khan’s biological mother, as Defence Witness No. 2 (DW-2). Through her sworn affidavit and oral testimony, she confirmed that Alam Khan was indeed her son and explained the family’s history, including her separation from Abdul Hakim and her return to her parental home. The Tribunal found that her evidence fully corroborated Alam Khan’s own testimony and expressly recorded that it found no reason to disbelieve her evidence.

This was a crucial intervention. In Foreigners Tribunal proceedings, discrepancies concerning parentage or family relationships often become decisive, particularly where birth certificates or other foundational documents are unavailable. By placing the biological mother in the witness box and allowing her testimony to withstand cross-examination, the defence transformed what appeared to be a documentary weakness into a coherent and credible explanation supported by oral evidence.

Equally significant was CJP’s response to another obstacle that had nothing to do with Alam Khan himself—the absence of certified electoral rolls for 1985 and 1989. The relevant Election Commission office was unable to produce certified copies of these electoral rolls because they had not been preserved. This was an institutional failure entirely attributable to the authorities. During the proceedings, Advocate Abhijeet Choudhury argued that a citizen cannot be expected to suffer adverse consequences because the State failed to preserve public records that were legally required to be maintained. The inability to produce those electoral rolls, therefore, could not be treated as evidence against the proceedee.

Instead of insisting upon documents that no longer existed, the defence invited the Tribunal to examine the continuity of evidence through earlier and subsequent electoral records, legacy documents and witness testimony. The Tribunal accepted this broader evidentiary approach, demonstrating that the absence of a particular document does not necessarily break the chain of proof where surrounding evidence establishes continuity.

Documentary evidence establishing citizenship

To discharge the burden imposed under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the defence produced an extensive body of documentary evidence tracing Alam Khan’s family across multiple decades. The foundation of the case lay in the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Tribunal noted that Alam Khan’s grandfather’s name appeared in the 1951 NRC Legacy Data under Legacy Data Code No. 120-0041-8547, establishing that the family was residing in village Katla, Mouza Bhawanipur, long before the citizenship cut-off date prescribed under the Assam Accord. The documentary chain was then strengthened through certified electoral rolls spanning more than five decades.

The 1965 and 1970 voter lists contained the names of Alam Khan’s father, Abdul Hakim Khan, and his mother, Joytan Nessa. The 1970 electoral roll also reflected the presence of his stepmother following his father’s remarriage, a circumstance that aligned with the factual explanation advanced before the Tribunal. Alam Khan’s own name subsequently appeared in the electoral records from 1997 onwards, demonstrating continuity of residence in the same village. Certified copies of the voter list for 1997, 2005, 2010, 2019 and 2021 were produced before the Tribunal.

The defence also produced Alam Khan’s Voter Identity Card, land records (Khatian) and a certificate issued by the Gaonburah of Katla village. Significantly, the Gaonburah himself appeared before the Tribunal and proved the certificate, explaining that it had been issued after verification of the 1965 electoral records relating to Alam Khan’s father. This substantially enhanced the evidentiary value of the certificate, which was no longer merely a supporting document but one whose authenticity stood established through oral testimony.

An equally important aspect of the proceedings was the State’s own conduct. While Alam Khan examined three witnesses, including himself, and produced extensive documentary evidence, the State did not lead any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the allegation that he was a foreigner. The Tribunal specifically recorded that no witness appeared on behalf of the State to adduce evidence.

Tribunal rejects a mechanical approach to citizenship determination

The order is particularly significant because it rejects a narrow or mechanical assessment of documentary evidence in favour of a holistic evaluation of the entire factual record. Foreigners Tribunal proceedings are frequently characterised by intense scrutiny of documentary inconsistencies. Minor discrepancies in names, ages, family relationships or electoral records have often proved fatal to citizenship claims. In Alam Khan’s case, however, the Tribunal recognised that documentary records must be assessed in light of the social realities that produce them.

Rather than treating the absence of a birth certificate or the appearance of a stepmother’s name in later electoral rolls as circumstances adverse to the proceedee, the Tribunal examined whether those circumstances had been satisfactorily explained through credible evidence. Finding that they had, it accepted the explanation offered by the defence.

This approach reflects an important principle in citizenship adjudication: documentary evidence does not exist in isolation. Electoral rolls, family records and legacy documents must be read together with oral testimony and surrounding circumstances. Where the evidence collectively establishes a coherent and credible narrative, isolated inconsistencies cannot automatically justify declaring an individual a foreigner. That reasoning is one of the most significant aspects of the order and reinforces the principle that citizenship determinations must rest on a comprehensive appreciation of evidence rather than on rigid technicalities.

Tribunal finds Alam Khan successfully discharged the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act

One of the most important aspects of the decision lies in the Tribunal’s application of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proving Indian citizenship upon the proceedee once a reference is made against them. While the statutory burden remained upon Alam Khan, the Tribunal emphasised that this burden had to be assessed on the basis of the quality, credibility and cumulative effect of the evidence rather than through a piecemeal examination of individual documents.

After considering the oral testimony and documentary record together, the Tribunal held that Alam Khan had successfully discharged this burden. It observed that the evidence placed on record was trustworthy, internally consistent and sufficiently established that he was born to Indian parents who had been residing in Assam prior to March 25, 1971.

This finding is significant because it reiterates an important evidentiary principle governing Foreigners Tribunal proceeding. Although Section 9 reverses the ordinary burden of proof, it does not authorise a mechanical rejection of citizenship claims merely because every conceivable document is unavailable. Instead, what is required is a credible evidentiary chain capable of establishing ancestry and residence. The Tribunal found that Alam Khan had done precisely that.

Oral evidence receives equal evidentiary weight

The order is equally noteworthy for the importance it accords to oral testimony. Citizenship cases before Foreigners Tribunals often become document-centric, with oral evidence receiving comparatively little attention. In Alam Khan’s case, however, the Tribunal carefully evaluated the testimony of both the proceedee and his witnesses instead of confining itself to documentary records alone.

The evidence of Joytan Nessa (DW-2) proved particularly decisive. Her testimony not only established that she was Alam Khan’s biological mother but also explained the family’s circumstances following her divorce from Abdul Hakim. The Tribunal categorically recorded that her affidavit corroborated Alam Khan’s own evidence and that there was no reason to disbelieve her testimony.

Similarly, the Gaonburah of Katla village, who had issued the hereditary certificate relied upon by the defence, appeared before the Tribunal and proved its contents. The Tribunal specifically noted that the certificate had been issued after verification of the 1965 electoral records relating to Alam Khan’s father, thereby enhancing both its authenticity and evidentiary value.

Together, these witnesses bridged the documentary gaps that arose because of divorce, remarriage and the absence of a birth certificate. Rather than treating oral evidence as secondary, the Tribunal relied upon it to contextualise and reinforce the documentary record.

Administrative negligence cannot defeat citizenship

The proceedings also exposed a troubling administrative lapse. During the course of the case, certified copies of the 1985 and 1989 electoral rolls could not be produced because the Election Commission had failed to preserve those records. This was not a case where Alam Khan had failed to produce documents in his possession; rather, the relevant public authority itself was unable to furnish records that ought to have been maintained.

Recognising the implications of this failure, CJP argued that a citizen cannot be deprived of his legal rights because of omissions committed by the State. The absence of public records attributable to administrative negligence cannot be converted into evidence against the very citizen who seeks to rely upon them.

Although the Tribunal’s written opinion ultimately rested on the strength of the remaining documentary and oral evidence, its acceptance of the defence case effectively recognised that missing public records, when unavailable due to official lapses, cannot by themselves negate an otherwise credible claim of citizenship. The decision therefore reflects a fair and pragmatic approach to evidentiary evaluation in citizenship proceedings.

This aspect of the case is likely to assume wider significance. Across Assam, numerous citizenship proceedings have been complicated by missing electoral rolls, damaged records and administrative deficiencies that are entirely beyond the control of the persons facing proceedings. The reasoning adopted in Alam Khan’s case reinforces the principle that such institutional failures should not become instruments for denying citizenship.

A holistic appreciation of evidence

In this order, rather than isolating each document and asking whether it independently established citizenship, the Tribunal examined the evidence as a connected chain extending across several decades. It considered the 1951 NRC legacy data, the certified electoral rolls from 1965, 1970, 1997, 2005, 2010, 2019 and 2021, the voter identity cards, the land records, the Gaonburah’s certificate and the oral testimony of the proceedee and his witnesses. None of these documents, viewed in isolation, answered every question raised in the proceedings. Taken together, however, they established a consistent narrative regarding Alam Khan’s ancestry, family history and continuous residence in Assam.

The Tribunal expressly recorded that the evidence relied upon by Alam Khan appeared trustworthy, that there was nothing on record to disbelieve his version, and that the documents produced were admissible and duly proved. On that basis, it concluded that he had been born and brought up through genuine Indian parents and, being their descendant, could not be termed a foreigner.

“The evidence of Proceedee, coupled with the above-mentioned documents relied upon by him appears to be trustworthy and there is nothing on record to disbelieve him. I find sufficient proof on record to come to a definite conclusion that the Proceedee was born and brought up through genuine Indian Parents and as such, he being the descendent of his Indian Parents cannot be termed as a foreigner as alleged in the above-mentioned case.” (Para 8)

In doing so, the Tribunal reaffirmed an important legal principle: citizenship adjudication is ultimately an exercise in evaluating the totality of evidence. The law does not require perfection in documentation; it requires credible proof. Where multiple independent pieces of evidence corroborate one another and collectively establish the proceedee’s claim, isolated inconsistencies or documentary gaps cannot outweigh the cumulative force of the record. That is precisely the approach adopted in Alam Khan’s case, making the decision an important example of reasoned and evidence-based adjudication under the Foreigners Act.

The Final Verdict: Tribunal declares Alam Khan ‘not a foreigner’

Having examined the oral testimony, documentary evidence and the submissions advanced by both sides, the Foreigners Tribunal unequivocally held that the allegations made against Alam Khan could not be sustained. The Tribunal observed that the proceedee’s testimony, read together with the evidence of his biological mother and the documentary record produced before it, constituted a credible and reliable chain of evidence. It found no material on record that cast doubt upon the authenticity of the documents or the veracity of the witnesses. On the contrary, the Tribunal held that the evidence consistently established that Alam Khan belonged to a family that had been residing in Assam long before the statutory cut-off date and that he was the descendant of genuine Indian citizens.

Accordingly, by its order dated January 6, 2026, the Tribunal answered the reference in the negative, holding that Md. Alam Khan, son of Late Abdul Hakim Khan of village Katla, Barpeta, is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The decision finally brought an end to a proceeding that had remained unresolved for over two decades, restoring to Alam Khan what should never have been placed in doubt—his recognition as an Indian citizen.

Alam Khan holds up the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order

Why this order matters

While the order grants relief to one individual, its importance lies in the principles it reinforces for citizenship adjudication before Foreigners Tribunals. First, the order demonstrates that family complexities cannot be viewed in isolation from social realities. Divorce, remarriage and blended family structures are lived realities across society. The absence of a birth certificate or the appearance of a step-parent’s name in electoral records cannot automatically negate a person’s citizenship. By accepting oral evidence that satisfactorily explained these circumstances, the Tribunal adopted an approach rooted in evidentiary fairness rather than technical formalism.

Secondly, the case highlights the consequences of administrative negligence. The inability to produce certain electoral records did not arise because Alam Khan had failed to preserve them; rather, the relevant public authority itself had failed to maintain those records. Had the Tribunal adopted an inflexible documentary standard, Alam Khan could have been penalised for omissions committed entirely by the State. Instead, the Tribunal assessed the available evidence in its entirety and declined to allow institutional lapses to determine the outcome of the proceedings.

Thirdly, the decision reiterates that the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act is discharged through credible and cumulative evidence, not through the production of any one document in isolation. Legacy data, electoral rolls spanning several decades, land records, voter identity documents, certificates issued by local authorities and reliable witness testimony together formed an unbroken chain that satisfied the Tribunal. The order therefore reinforces the settled principle that citizenship claims must be evaluated on the basis of the totality of evidence rather than isolated discrepancies.

Finally, the order underscores the importance of effective legal representation in Foreigners Tribunal proceedings. Citizenship litigation often turns upon nuanced questions of evidence, lineage and documentary continuity. Alam Khan’s case demonstrates how careful legal strategy, supported by thorough documentation and credible witness testimony, can overcome seemingly insurmountable evidentiary hurdles.

A victory beyond the courtroom

For Alam Khan, the order marks far more than the conclusion of litigation. For years, the proceedings imposed severe emotional, social and financial burdens on a man whose livelihood depended on daily labour, farming and fishing. Living on the banks of the Dhumarkur River, Alam Khan has long battled forces beyond his control. Every monsoon, floodwaters enter his home, eroding both land and livelihood. Yet, for over two decades, nature was not his only adversary. As he poignantly puts it, “On one side, the floods threaten to wash away my home. On the other, the government sought to take away my citizenship.” His victory before the Foreigners Tribunal has ended one of those battles, even as the other returns with every monsoon.

Like countless individuals facing citizenship proceedings in Assam, he lived with the uncertainty that accompanies every notice, every hearing and every adjournment. The prolonged litigation affected not only his legal status but also his ability to live with dignity and security.

Upon learning of the Tribunal’s decision, Alam Khan broke down in tears. Describing the years of mental distress and financial hardship that accompanied the proceedings, he acknowledged that without the legal support extended by Citizens for Justice and Peace, it would have been extremely difficult for him to establish his citizenship and secure justice.

On July 26 2026, Advocate Abhijeet Choudhury and CJP Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh formally handed over the certified copy of the order to Alam Khan, symbolising the end of a legal struggle that had lasted almost twenty-six years.

CJP’s continuing commitment

Alam Khan’s case is another reminder of the indispensable role that sustained legal aid plays in protecting the rights of vulnerable communities facing citizenship proceedings in Assam. Over the years, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has represented hundreds of economically and socially marginalised individuals before Foreigners Tribunals, assisting them in tracing legacy documents, reconstructing family histories, producing witnesses and navigating a complex legal process that is often inaccessible to those with limited means.

The organisation’s intervention in Alam Khan’s case illustrates that citizenship litigation is not merely about producing documents; it is about reconstructing lives, explaining family histories, addressing administrative failures and ensuring that constitutional guarantees are not defeated by poverty, illiteracy or bureaucratic lapses.

With this order, another individual has been spared the devastating consequences of an erroneous declaration of foreigner status. Yet the case also serves as a broader reminder that citizenship adjudication must remain anchored in fairness, careful appreciation of evidence and the rule of law.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

When a narrow reading of documents decide citizenship: GHC in Aminul Hoque

‘Fairness & reason ‘: SC rules that due process is a must for citizenship determination

Gauhati High Court upholds foreigner declaration, rejects mental illness plea

When a Spelling Error Can Cost Citizenship: Supreme Court stays deportation of five Assam women

The post 26-Year Citizenship Battle Ends: Barpeta Tribunal rules Alam Khan is Indian appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From Azad Maidan to Shivaji Park and Dadar’s Chaityabhoomi, protesters gathered to demand answers. Instead of opening channels for dialogue, the State’s response has been marked by preventive detentions, multiple FIRs naming hundreds of protesters, late-night WhatsApp notices, heavy police deployment and restrictions on public assembly.

The scale of the police action, including allegations that citizens were detained even before protests could formally begin, has raised serious questions about whether authorities are maintaining public order or attempting to suppress democratic dissent.

While the Maharashtra government has defended the crackdown, alleging that some elements attempted to exploit the movement for political purposes, the central question remains: can a democracy respond to young citizens demanding accountability by treating their presence on the streets as a law-and-order threat?

Mumbai’s protests have therefore become more than a dispute over examination irregularities. They have become a test of the State’s constitutional obligation to protect peaceful assembly and the right of citizens to question those in power.

#Mumbai | Hundreds gathered in Chembur & Shivaji Park in solidarity with protesters who were injured in Delhi during CJP’s march to Parliament.

Demands have now escalated here to resignation of PM Narendra Modi along with education minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

@tabassum_b pic.twitter.com/u4VPgxgP8p

— Scroll.in (@scroll_in) July 22, 2026

So today in Mumbai, students protests were going on Shivaji Park, Dadar near Raj Thackeray’s house.
Police picked the students and put them in bus aiming to detain them. MNS Leader Mr. Amit Thackeray and Sharmila Thackeray came in support and made the police release the… pic.twitter.com/Ho9iH7cR5J

— MNS Report English (@MNSReportEng) July 21, 2026

Breaking

Police crack down on NEET protesters in Mumbai; protesters dragged on road, detained

As youth and student protesters gathered near Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Garden in Chembur, Mumbai, chanting slogans, Mumbai Police detained multiple participants. Several photos from the… pic.twitter.com/uCp2O3kVou

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) July 22, 2026

A movement finds local echo

The immediate escalation in Mumbai followed the police action against young protesters during the student-led/Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) “Sansad Chalo” march in Delhi on July 20. Thousands of demonstrators had gathered demanding accountability over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations, including NEET, and seeking the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

The march towards Parliament ended in confrontation after police stopped protesters near Parliament Street. Reports stated that protesters faced baton charges and tear gas as security forces attempted to prevent them from moving beyond barricades. The images of the crackdown triggered anger among student groups and supporters across the country, including Mumbai. Within hours, demonstrations were organised across the city.

Students, young professionals, activists, lawyers and citizens gathered not only in support of the CJP’s demands but also in protest against what they described as an excessive state response to a peaceful youth movement.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Mumbai’s streets see continued mobilisation despite detentions

The protests in Mumbai began gaining momentum over the weekend, with gatherings reported at Azad Maidan, Shivaji Park and Chaityabhoomi. On July 21, more than 500 people gathered at Shivaji Park demanding accountability over examination-related failures and reiterating the call for Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, reported The Indian Express.

The protesters included students, senior citizens, working professionals and first-time demonstrators. The gathering remained largely peaceful, with slogans including:

“Dharmendra Pradhan must resign”

“Inquilab Zindabad”

“Jai Bhim”

“Vande Mataram”

Several participants told The Indian Express that their concerns had moved beyond a single examination controversy. They spoke about declining trust in public institutions, repeated paper leaks and the uncertainty faced by millions of young people preparing for competitive examinations. A working professional quoted by the newspaper said she joined the protest despite not having children because she believed the issue affected the future of an entire generation.

Shameful Act By @MumbaiPolice

Students protesting peacefully are being detained. What is wrong in demanding accountability

Officers should remember accountability will be set on all levels! pic.twitter.com/hnvKjDC0bi

— Cockroach is Back (@Cockroachisback) July 22, 2026

In Chembur, Mumbai right now. There will be similar protests in Vashi at 6 pm, Dadar at 4 pm and at Powai at 5 pm pic.twitter.com/V28Jm3qX1L

— Rana Ayyub (@RanaAyyub) July 22, 2026

Protesters detained in Mumbai

Live Updates: https://t.co/9MiFsaawxj pic.twitter.com/NtfIExXIea

— The Wire (@thewire_in) July 22, 2026

Police detentions before protest could take shape

One of the most controversial aspects of Mumbai’s response has been the allegation that police action prevented protests from even beginning. In a ground report for Outlook India, journalist Pritha Vashisth described how protesters arriving at Shivaji Park on July 21 were detained even before a large gathering had formed.

According to the report, police vehicles were positioned near the venue and individuals walking towards the location were stopped and taken away. The report described a mix of students, working professionals and ordinary citizens being detained despite not having participated in any visible disturbance.

The incident raised questions about the extent to which preventive powers can be used. Authorities relied on restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which allows executive authorities to impose preventive measures in situations where there is a threat to public peace. However, such powers cannot become a mechanism to prevent peaceful democratic assembly. Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to assemble peacefully without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions. The question emerging from Mumbai is whether the State was managing a protest or stopping one from taking place.

Hundreds booked, FIRs registered across Mumbai

The police response intensified after the demonstrations, with multiple criminal cases being registered against protesters. According to The Indian Express, Mumbai Police registered seven fresh FIRs after Monday’s demonstrations, taking the total number of FIRs linked to the NEET protests in Mumbai to 12. More than 900 people were named as accused across these cases.

The FIRs invoked provisions relating to unlawful assembly and disobedience of lawful orders. Police stated that the cases were registered because protesters had gathered without permission. The police also began issuing notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, directing accused persons to appear before investigating officers instead of being immediately arrested.

Hindustan Times reported that notices were sent to hundreds of protesters through WhatsApp, with several young participants receiving messages late at night asking them to appear before police stations. Lawyers assisting protesters criticised the scale of the action. Speaking to The Indian Express, advocate Vijay Hiremath said it was unusual for police to name such a large number of participants in protest-related FIRs. “During previous protests, they would usually name a few organisers or activists, not so many participants,” he said.

Students allege police surveillance and intimidation

Alongside FIRs and notices, student organisers alleged that they were subjected to increased police monitoring after mobilising support for the protests. Speaking to Hindustan Times, student leaders claimed they received repeated calls from different police units after circulating information about demonstrations.

Vaibhav Chopkar of the All India Students Federation (AISF) alleged that he received calls from local police stations and even the Anti-Naxal Squad after coordinating travel arrangements for students travelling from Maharashtra to Delhi for the “Chalo Sansad” march. Members of Chhatra Bharati also alleged that organisers received repeated calls questioning their activities and protest plans. Students said such monitoring created fear among young protesters, particularly those concerned that criminal cases could affect their education and careers. Lawyers supporting the protesters argued that participation in peaceful demonstrations should not become a basis for intimidating young citizens.

Legal assistance for students as cases mount

As protesters began receiving notices and facing FIRs, lawyers across Mumbai stepped in to provide assistance. Advocates visited police stations, helped students understand the legal implications of notices and advised them regarding appearances before investigating officers. Speaking to Hindustan Times, lawyer Srushti More said several notices were vague and required legal interpretation. Other lawyers argued that many detained protesters were students, women and first-time demonstrators who had not engaged in violence.

Advocate Lara Jessani criticised the use of criminal law against protesters, arguing that peaceful demonstrations should not be treated as offences. She questioned the registration of cases across multiple police jurisdictions and alleged that legal provisions meant to protect citizens were being used to discourage participation.

Political support arrives, but students maintain independence

The protests also received political backing in Maharashtra. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray criticised the police action against protesters in Delhi and questioned why the government was defending the Education Minister despite growing public anger. In a statement reported by Mid-Day, Thackeray argued that the protests reflected broader dissatisfaction over education, inflation, environmental concerns and economic policies. MNS workers and leaders participated in demonstrations at Shivaji Park, where Raj Thackeray’s wife Sharmila Thackeray also joined protesters.

https://x.com/RajThackeray/status/2079507814142410812

Shiv Sena (UBT) also organised demonstrations, including a gathering in Dongri. Party leader Aaditya Thackeray criticised the Delhi crackdown, describing it as “the most frightening face of BJP rule”, according to The Indian Express. He accused the Centre of failing to engage with protesting students and compared the response to previous instances where protest movements were allegedly labelled as threats. Aaditya Thackeray also announced legal assistance for students and activists facing FIRs or notices.

वन नेशन, वन इमोशन!

२४ जुलै, शुक्रवार रोजी छत्रपती शिवाजी महाराज पार्क येथे आमच्यासोबत सामील व्हा! दुपारी ४ वाजल्यापासून आपण सर्वजण तिरंग्याखाली एकत्र येऊया आणि सायंकाळी ५ वाजता आपले राष्ट्रगीत गाऊया.

दिल्लीतील अमानुष दडपशाही आणि देशभरातील विद्यार्थ्यांच्या अटकेच्या…

— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) July 22, 2026

One Nation, One Emotion: standing with our young India! @ShivSenaUBT_ President Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray ji visited Jantar Mantar today to meet @abhijeet_dipke .

He has stood firmly with @Wangchuk66 and Abhijeet since day one, as they fight for young Indians! https://t.co/lakMzU5laP

— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) July 21, 2026

Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi (VBA) chief Prakash Ambedkar called for a Maharashtra bandh on July 23 in support of the protesting students and against the police action during the demonstration.  Announcing the bandh, Ambedkar said, “In light of the brutal attack and lathi-charge on students protesting peacefully in Delhi, Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi has called for a Maharashtra Bandh on July 23 in support of the students and in protest against the police brutality.” His appeal sought to bring together like-minded political groups and citizens against what he described as the suppression of a peaceful student movement.

काल दिल्लीत शांततापूर्ण आंदोलन करणाऱ्या विद्यार्थ्यांवर झालेल्या अमानुष हल्ल्याच्या आणि लाठीचार्जच्या पार्श्वभूमीवर, त्या विद्यार्थ्यांच्या समर्थनार्थ आणि पोलिसांच्या या दडपशाहीचा निषेध करण्यासाठी ‘वंचित बहुजन आघाडी’ने २३ जुलै रोजी ‘महाराष्ट्र बंद’ची हाक दिली आहे.

मी सर्व… https://t.co/5MHwdJGn14

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) July 21, 2026

Government’s Defence: “Some Elements Infiltrated the Protest”

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis defended the government’s response while acknowledging that many protesters had genuine concerns. Reported by Deccan Herald, Fadnavis said that peaceful protest was a democratic right and would be allowed if conducted with permission. However, he alleged that some elements had entered the CJP agitation with their own agendas.

According to a PTI report, Fadnavis said: “I do not want to make allegations against all the protesters. Some of them may be participating with good intentions.”

At the same time, he claimed that certain groups had attempted to use the movement to create political unrest.

He said: “Some people have entered the protest only to pursue their own agenda. Some of them have nothing to do with NEET and only want to create unrest.”

Fadnavis also claimed that some participants were unaware of the details of the examination controversy. The Chief Minister defended police action in Delhi, stating that authorities had exercised restraint and that intervention was necessary to prevent larger incidents. He alleged that some political organisations were attempting to exploit the agitation for political gains.

The Core Question: Maintaining order or criminalising dissent?

The Maharashtra government has maintained that its actions were necessary to prevent disorder and ensure public safety. The protesters, however, argue that the response itself has become disproportionate.

The contrast between the peaceful nature of most Mumbai demonstrations and the scale of police action has raised questions about whether ordinary citizens are being discouraged from participating in democratic protest. The issue is not merely whether organisers obtained permissions or whether authorities have powers to regulate assemblies. The larger constitutional question is how those powers are exercised.

A democracy allows governments to regulate protests. But regulation cannot become a substitute for engagement.  In Mumbai, young citizens returned to the streets despite detentions, FIRs and notices because their concerns were not limited to one examination or one demand. They were asking a more fundamental question: when institutions affecting millions of young people fail, who is accountable? And when those young people take to the streets demanding answers, how should a democracy respond?

Related:

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests

From Protest to Petition: Maharashtra’s Public Safety Act in the dock

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The turning point came on July 20, when thousands of protesters attempting to march towards Parliament from the Jantar Mantar area were met with heavy police deployment, barricading, tear gas and allegations of baton charges. The crackdown, which left several protesters injured and resulted in multiple FIRs, intensified anger among students and civil society groups, triggering demonstrations in states including Bihar, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra and Kerala.

What began as a demand for accountability over examination failures has now expanded into a wider confrontation over the State’s response to peaceful protest, the right to dissent and the question of whether young citizens raising concerns about their future are being met with dialogue or coercion?

July 20 Delhi crackdown becomes catalyst for nationwide mobilisation

The march towards Parliament on July 20 was organised after weeks of protests demanding accountability over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations. Thousands of students, young aspirants and supporters gathered in Delhi, seeking answers over examination failures and demanding accountability from the Union Education Ministry.

However, the march was stopped by security forces deployed across central Delhi. According to reports by The Indian Express, protesters faced multiple layers of barricading, tear gas deployment and police action as they attempted to move towards Parliament.

Detailed report may be read here.

The aftermath of the crackdown was visible across the protest site — injured protesters returned with bandaged heads and limbs, volunteers rebuilt damaged arrangements at Jantar Mantar, and several participants alleged excessive use of force. Speaking to The Indian Express, several protesters who returned to Jantar Mantar after hospitalisation described injuries sustained during the police action. Some alleged being beaten despite being unable to move, while others claimed that women protesters were also subjected to force.

The police, however, maintained that action was taken after “clashes broke out” and “protesters allegedly breached security arrangements”. Delhi Police subsequently registered multiple FIRs relating to allegations of violence, damage to public property and attacks on security personnel.

Injured protesters return, movement expands at Jantar Mantar

Despite the crackdown, protesters returned to Jantar Mantar the following day. The Indian Express reported that several protesters who had spent the night in hospitals returned to the protest site, some walking with injuries and fresh bandages. Participants described their return as an act of resistance against what they viewed as an attempt to suppress their demands.

The protest site also became a space of collective support. Volunteers arranged food, water, medical assistance and other necessities. Poetry sessions, solidarity gatherings and community support activities continued through the night. The return of protesters after police action demonstrated that the crackdown had not ended the mobilisation. Instead, it became a rallying point for solidarity actions across India.

Solidarity protests spread across states

• Kerala: Candlelight vigils and student solidarity gatherings

Kerala witnessed solidarity demonstrations as the student movement in Delhi drew support from youth groups, civil society organisations and citizens across the state. In Kochi, people from different sections of society gathered for a midnight candlelight protest expressing solidarity with students protesting alleged examination irregularities and demanding accountability from the Union Education Ministry. Participants carried placards and candles, raising concerns over the impact of examination failures on students’ futures.

The gathering at Kochi reflected the broader character of the movement outside Delhi — unlike the large-scale marches in the national capital, several protests in Kerala took the form of peaceful vigils and symbolic demonstrations. Participants said they were joining the mobilisation because they could not travel to Delhi but wanted to register their opposition to alleged failures in the examination system.

Similar expressions of solidarity were reported from other parts of Kerala, including Thrissur, where activists issued statements criticising examination irregularities and the pressure faced by students. The groups argued that repeated disruptions in competitive examinations had created uncertainty among lakhs of aspirants and demanded accountability from those responsible.

Unlike Bihar and Delhi, where protesters faced direct police action, no major confrontation between police and protesters was reported in Kerala. The state’s experience therefore represented another dimension of the nationwide mobilisation — a movement sustained not only through street confrontations but also through public gatherings, vigils and expressions of civic solidarity.

• Ladakh: Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance extend solidarity with student protests

The student-led protests over examination irregularities and the police crackdown in Delhi also received support from Ladakh, with the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) expressing solidarity with the ongoing agitation. Leaders from the two major civil society groups of Ladakh visited the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest site at Jantar Mantar on July 21 and extended support to the students’ demand for accountability in the examination system.

According to a report by PTI carried by ThePrint, the delegation included KDA leaders Asgar Karbalai and Sajjad Kargili, along with Leh Apex Body representatives Chhering Dorjey Lakruk, Mohammadi Shafi, Ashraf Barcha and Dechan Chamba. They met CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and other protesters at the protest site, conveying solidarity over allegations of competitive examination irregularities and concerns regarding the future of students.

The KDA and LAB linked the students’ concerns with a wider question of institutional accountability. Speaking to PTI, KDA representative Sajjad Kargili said the alleged paper leak issue was a serious concern and that people in Ladakh shared the demand for a transparent and accountable education system.

• Bihar: Tear gas, water cannons and lathi-charge against student march

Bihar saw one of the strongest reactions from authorities after student groups organised demonstrations in solidarity with the Delhi protests. Students under the banner of the All India Students’ Association (AISA) organised a march towards the Raj Bhavan in Patna, demanding accountability over examination irregularities and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

According to reports by Times of India, the march was stopped near Gandhi Maidan and JP Golambar, where police deployed water cannons, tear gas shells and baton charges to disperse protesters.

The police action in Patna came shortly after the Delhi crackdown, with protesters also raising objections to the force used against demonstrators in the national capital. CPI (ML) Liberation MLA Sandeep Sourav, who participated in the protest, criticised the handling of the demonstrations and accused authorities of attempting to suppress student voices.

The events in Bihar reinforced concerns among student groups that peaceful demonstrations over public issues were increasingly being addressed through law-and-order measures rather than dialogue.

• Goa: Solidarity march followed by FIR over alleged procedural violations

Goa witnessed a solidarity march in Panaji supporting the student-led mobilisation. Hundreds of protesters gathered for a candlelight march from the Miramar area to Azad Maidan, organised by Goa-based NGO Uzwaad. Participants raised concerns over examination failures and demanded accountability for students affected by alleged paper leaks and cancellations.

However, police later registered an FIR against unknown protesters, alleging unlawful assembly and stating that the gathering had taken place without prior permission from authorities. The case reflected a recurring issue seen across several states — the use of procedural requirements governing public assemblies as the basis for legal action against demonstrations. While authorities have argued that permissions are necessary for maintaining public order, activists have questioned whether such provisions are being applied disproportionately against peaceful protests.

• Himachal Pradesh: Government joins protest demanding accountability

In Himachal Pradesh, the protest took the form of a political demonstration, with Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu joining Congress leaders in a sit-in outside the Governor’s residence. According to The Hindu, Congress leaders described the protest as an expression of solidarity with students and accused the Union government of failing to protect the interests of young aspirants facing examination-related uncertainty.

Sukhu demanded accountability from the central government and called for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. He also criticised the detention of opposition leaders during protests in Delhi, arguing that action against elected representatives and students raised concerns about democratic freedoms.

• Punjab and Haryana: Opposition protests and preventive detentions

In Punjab, Congress leaders held a demonstration outside Lok Bhawan in Chandigarh, expressing solidarity with protesting students. The protest was led by former minister Balbir Singh Sidhu and former Punjab Assembly Speaker Rana K.P. Singh, who criticised the handling of examination-related grievances and demanded accountability.

In Haryana, Congress leaders attempting to reach Haryana Lok Bhawan were detained by police. According to The Hindu, Haryana Congress leaders said they were protesting alongside students and demanding a transparent examination system and protection of democratic rights.

• Karnataka and other southern states: Political mobilisation expands

The protests also spread to Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana, where opposition parties and student groups organised demonstrations over examination irregularities.

Reports by Deccan Herald provided that Congress workers held protests in Bengaluru and other cities, with some leaders facing police detention during demonstrations.

In Tamil Nadu and Telangana, political parties also expressed support for student demands, arguing that repeated examination controversies required structural reforms rather than temporary responses.

• Maharashtra: Solidarity protests in Mumbai and Pune followed by FIRs against demonstrators

Maharashtra emerged as one of the key centres of solidarity mobilisation after the student protests in Delhi intensified following the July 20 police crackdown. Demonstrations were reported in Mumbai and Pune, with protesters demanding accountability over alleged examination irregularities and expressing support for the nationwide student movement.

In Mumbai, supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) held demonstrations at multiple locations, including Azad Maidan and Shivaji Park. The protests focused on demands for a transparent examination system and accountability over alleged failures in the conduct of competitive examinations. The Indian Express reported that Azad Maidan became a gathering point for citizens and activists supporting the CJP-led agitation, with protesters raising demands including the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET-UG paper leak controversy.

The mobilisation also saw participation from political leaders. Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray had earlier extended support to the agitation and demanded that the Union Education Minister step down, arguing that accountability was necessary following repeated concerns over examination management.

In Pune, thousands gathered near the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Garden outside the District Collectorate on July 20 in support of the movement. According to The Indian Express, the demonstration remained peaceful and concluded without any reported confrontation with police. Protesters raised concerns over the NEET-UG paper leak and other examination-related issues affecting students.

However, the State response in Mumbai quickly shifted towards legal action. The Mumbai Police registered an FIR against organisers of a Shivaji Park protest, citing that the demonstration had taken place without prior permission. The case was registered under provisions relating to unlawful assembly.

Subsequently, Mumbai Police registered multiple FIRs connected with CJP-related demonstrations across the city. Reports stated that cases were filed across several police stations, including against hundreds of protesters, on allegations of unauthorised gatherings and violations of law-and-order provisions.

The police action in Maharashtra reflected a wider pattern visible across states after the July 20 Delhi crackdown — while protesters sought to expand a public conversation on examination failures and institutional accountability, authorities relied heavily on restrictions, permission requirements and criminal proceedings to regulate demonstrations.

Detailed report may be read here.

Maharashtra chief minister, Devendra Fadnavis was reported ‘warning’ protesters who indulged in violence and ‘unlawful demonstrations. Independent media and social media reports from Mumbai, Pune and elsewhere in the state however showed clear “orders” to police authorities to criminalise democratic and peaceful actions, with FIRs and notices being issued across Maharashtra. Report may be read here.

Madhya Pradesh: Indore students join nationwide mobilisation against exam failures and Delhi crackdown

The student-led mobilisation that began at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar found a strong echo in Madhya Pradesh, particularly in Indore, where hundreds of students took to the streets demanding accountability over examination irregularities and condemning the police action against protesters in the national capital. Indore, one of central India’s major education hubs with a large population of competitive exam aspirants, emerged as an important centre of solidarity after the July 20 crackdown in Delhi.

On July 22, more than 1,000 students, coaching faculty members and local residents gathered at Bhanwarkuan in Indore, a well-known student area, to protest against the alleged NEET paper leak and demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. According to reports by The Times of India and Navbharat Times, the demonstration was organised in solidarity with the Jantar Mantar protesters after Delhi Police used force during the “Chalo Sansad” march on July 20.

The protest in Indore was not an isolated reaction to the Delhi events. Students had already been mobilising locally over examination-related concerns. Earlier in July, hundreds of students had marched to the Indore Collectorate after a prolonged protest, raising demands linked to alleged NEET irregularities and wider failures in the examination system. Reports by Free Press Journal noted that some students shaved their heads as a mark of protest and staged a sit-in outside the Collectorate, accusing authorities of failing to respond to their concerns.

• Rajasthan: From Sikar’s torch march to wider student solidarity

Rajasthan, a state with one of India’s largest competitive examination ecosystems, also witnessed significant mobilisation in support of the student protests. Student groups and activists in the state linked their demonstrations to concerns over examination integrity, alleged paper leaks and the demand for accountability from education authorities.

In Sikar, a major coaching hub for medical and competitive examinations, students, activists and members of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) organised a torch march protesting alleged NEET irregularities and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The march began from Piprali Circle and culminated at CLC Chowk, with participants carrying placards and raising slogans demanding a transparent investigation into alleged examination failures. The Times of India reported that the protest included student representatives, activists and local political figures, who called for reforms in the examination system and accountability for those responsible.

The protests in Sikar carried particular significance because the city has long been recognised as a centre for NEET and other competitive examination preparation. Students there argued that repeated controversies around entrance examinations had created uncertainty among aspirants who spend years preparing for highly competitive tests.

Earlier, Jaipur had also witnessed mobilisation linked to the broader campaign. Reports by The Times of India noted that CJP had announced demonstrations in Jaipur highlighting issues including alleged paper leaks, examination irregularities, unemployment concerns and failures in the education system.

Opposition joins protests as Parliament witnesses disruption

The protests also entered Parliament, where opposition parties raised the issue of police action against students. According to reports by The Times of India, parliamentary proceedings were disrupted for the second consecutive day as opposition MPs protested over the treatment of demonstrators.

Congress leaders accused the government of avoiding accountability, while opposition parties demanded discussion on examination failures and alleged police excesses. Outside Parliament, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi led a protest near the Prime Minister’s residence along with party leaders and MPs. The protest resulted in police intervention, with Gandhi and other leaders being removed from the site.

International solidarity emerges as protests draw attention beyond India

The student-led protests also received expressions of solidarity outside India, with demonstrations and public gatherings organised in several countries after the police crackdown on protesters in Delhi.

In the United States, activists from the advocacy group Hindus for Human Rights held demonstrations in New York and San Jose, expressing support for the protesting students and raising concerns over the treatment of demonstrators in India. According to TOI reports, protesters gathered near the statue of Mahatma Gandhi at Union Square in New York and in San Jose, carrying placards supporting the student movement and demanding accountability over examination irregularities.

Similar solidarity actions were reported outside Indian diplomatic missions in London and Dublin, where participants called for engagement with protesters and urged authorities to address concerns raised by students rather than respond through coercive measures.

The overseas demonstrations reflected how the controversy around examination failures and the subsequent police action had travelled beyond India’s borders. The international response also highlighted the wider attention generated by the July 20 crackdown, with images and accounts of injured students, tear gas deployment and clashes near Parliament circulating globally.

A nationwide pattern: Solidarity grows, but so does state desperation

Across states, the nature of protests differed — from candlelight vigils in Kerala to confrontations with police in Bihar and legal action in Goa and Maharashtra. However, a common thread emerged: the movement expanded because protesters viewed the examination crisis as part of a larger question of institutional accountability.

The State response also varied. In some places, authorities allowed peaceful gatherings (mostly in opposition governed states); in others, protests were met with barricades, force, detentions and criminal cases. The spread of protests across India demonstrated that the July 20 crackdown did not end the mobilisation. Instead, it transformed a Delhi-based demonstration into a national conversation about education, governance and the democratic space available for dissent.

The Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), subject to reasonable restrictions. The challenge for the State is to maintain public order without treating dissent itself as a disruption. The events following July 20 demonstrate a recurring tension in India’s democracy: whether public anger, particularly from young citizens, will be addressed through engagement and accountability or managed primarily through policing.

The return of injured protesters to the streets and the spread of solidarity demonstrations across states suggest that the crackdown did not silence the movement. Instead, it transformed a Delhi protest into a nationwide debate over education, accountability and the democratic right to demand answers.

Related:

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests

From Protest to Petition: Maharashtra’s Public Safety Act in the dock

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post Youth Uprising: A protest, a brute crackdown, a continuing countrywide response appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Demonstrations in areas including Chaityabhoomi, Dadar and Shivaji Park were met with heavy police deployment, barricading and preventive action. While the police maintained that the gatherings were unauthorised and necessary measures were taken to prevent breaches of peace, protesters alleged that peaceful demonstrations were being criminalised through detentions and legal proceedings.

The movement of youth, that began with a call from the newly formed Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) has been amplified from the start by youth with no affiliation, youth associated with the CPI’s All India Students Federation, CPI-M’s SFI and AISA. Begun as as a youth-led protest against alleged irregularities in competitive examinations, including the NEET-UG controversy, has expanded into a broader demand for accountability, education reforms and responsibility from authorities over repeated failures affecting students. The events in Mumbai have now shifted attention to a larger question: whether administrative restrictions and criminal law are being used proportionately to regulate public protest.

Detailed piece on the Delhi protest and the excessive state action may be read here.

Mumbai Police impose prohibitory orders amid protests

On July 20, the Mumbai Police issued orders prohibiting assemblies of five or more persons in public places across the city from July 23 to August 6. The order also restricted processions, use of loudspeakers, musical instruments and other forms of public gatherings, citing apprehensions of breach of peace and disturbance to public tranquillity.

According to a report by The Economic Times, the restrictions were imposed shortly after a protest organised by the Sharad Pawar-led Nationalist Congress Party (SP) outside Mumbai University against the police action during the Student-CJP’s march to Parliament and Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar.

The police order invoked concerns of maintaining public order, but the timing of the restrictions, coming immediately after protests against police action in Delhi, raised concerns among civil society groups over whether broad preventive measures were being used to restrict constitutionally protected forms of dissent. The restrictions were imposed under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Police Commissioner and remained applicable from midnight of July 23 until August 6.

Chaityabhoomi protests: Hundreds detained, FIRs registered

On July 20, hundreds of students and activists gathered near Chaityabhoomi in Dadar to express solidarity with the CJP movement and protest against alleged examination irregularities and the handling of Wangchuk’s hunger strike.

According to The Indian Express, the protest was organised under the banner of Mumbai Against Suppression of Students (MASS), with participation from student organisations including the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Federation (AISF), Aamchi Padhai Aamchi Ladai and other youth groups. Protesters demanded accountability over alleged NEET irregularities and the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Police barricaded roads leading towards Chaityabhoomi and detained protesters attempting to reach the site. Organisers claimed that around 200 people were detained and taken to different police stations, including Sion, Dadar, Mahim and Worli.

Image: freepressjournal.in

The police, however, maintained that no permission had been granted for the protest. Deputy Commissioner of Police Mahendra Pandit stated that since the gathering proceeded despite denial of permission, action under law was being initiated.

The detentions were criticised by protesters, who alleged that peaceful demonstrators were prevented from exercising their right to assemble. Several participants told the media that they were detained despite carrying placards and raising slogans peacefully.

A protester quoted by The Indian Express said that students were demanding accountability over repeated examination failures and alleged that instead of addressing their concerns, authorities were detaining those raising questions.

FIRs against protesters and organisers

Following the protests, Mumbai Police registered multiple FIRs against demonstrators. The Indian Express reported that cases were registered against more than 900 people in connection with protests across Mumbai, including the largest FIR at Shivaji Park Police Station where over 600 protesters were named.

The FIRs invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) relating to unlawful assembly, disobedience of orders issued by public servants and obstruction of officials performing their duties. The police said they were examining CCTV footage, drone visuals and videos recorded during demonstrations to identify more participants.

Separately, Scroll reported that Mumbai Police registered three FIRs against more than 50 protesters following a solidarity demonstration near Chaityabhoomi. The cases invoked provisions relating to unlawful assembly, violation of prohibitory orders and offences under the Maharashtra Police Act.

The police argued that the protests were unauthorised and that restrictions were already in place. Protesters, however, questioned whether requiring prior permission could become a mechanism to prevent any inconvenient public mobilisation.

Image: indianexpress.com

Shivaji Park protest and political participation

The police action followed an earlier gathering at Shivaji Park on July 19, where hundreds assembled after Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar. The protest saw participation from Shiv Sena (UBT) president Uddhav Thackeray, who expressed solidarity with the movement and criticised the government’s handling of the agitation.

The Mumbai Police registered a case against organisers of the Shivaji Park gathering, stating that no permission had been granted for the demonstration. The Indian Express reported that the FIR was registered for alleged unlawful assembly. Police also registered cases linked to earlier demonstrations near Mantralaya and the Press Club, including against political workers and activists.

Notices issued to some detainees, while others await intimation

Following the detentions during the Mumbai protests, the legal status of several participants remained unclear. Those detained at Kalachowki Police Station were issued notice intimations under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), requiring them to comply with procedural requirements, though they were not called to the police station on the day of issuance.

Meanwhile, detainees taken to Worli Police Station had not received any such notices at the time of reporting. The absence of uniform communication regarding the legal status of those detained has added to concerns among protesters and organisers over the manner in which preventive action was carried out.

A heavy police presence was also reported near the water tank area close to Byculla railway station, with police vehicles stationed in the vicinity, indicating continued monitoring and deployment following the protests.

Claims of suppression and the constitutional question

The escalation in Mumbai followed the Delhi Police action during the CJP’s “Chalo Sansad” march on July 20, where protesters attempting to move towards Parliament were dispersed using tear gas and batons. The Delhi action became a flashpoint, with videos circulating online showing police using force against demonstrators.

In Mumbai, organisations involved in the supportive protests, criticised the detentions, stating on social media that peaceful protest was a democratic right and accusing authorities of attempting to suppress a youth movement. The organisation’s founder Abhijeet Dipke also apologised to injured supporters following clashes in Delhi and alleged that protesters, including women participants, faced excessive force.

The Maharashtra government, however, defended police action. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said peaceful protests were constitutionally protected but argued that demonstrations without permission or those involving violence could not be accepted. He also alleged that some groups had attempted to use the agitation for unrelated political purposes, as per the Mid-Day report.

Political protests over police action

The police response itself became a subject of protest. The Sharad Pawar-led NCP (SP) organised a demonstration outside Mumbai University, condemning the action against CJP protesters in Delhi and Mumbai. Party leaders demanded the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged examination failures and paper leaks.

According to reports carried by Telangana Today, NCP (SP) leaders accused authorities of suppressing democratic dissent and warned that youth movements would continue if accountability was not addressed.

A widening conflict over protest rights

The police response in Mumbai has brought into focus a familiar pattern in the State’s approach to dissent: administrative restrictions, preventive policing and criminal proceedings deployed before protests can fully unfold. While authorities have justified their actions on grounds of maintaining public order and enforcing permission requirements, the cumulative effect of prohibitory orders, mass detentions, extensive police deployment and multiple FIRs has been to significantly curtail public assembly.

At the heart of the issue is not simply whether permission was obtained for individual protests, but whether procedural requirements are increasingly being used to make the exercise of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly contingent on executive approval. When preventive detention, criminal prosecution and citywide restrictions become the primary response to peaceful mobilisation, the space for democratic dissent inevitably narrows.

What began as a youth-led movement demanding accountability for repeated failures in India’s examination system has, through the State’s response, become a wider test of democratic freedoms. The questions raised by students over examination integrity now sit alongside equally pressing questions about whether governments are responding to public criticism through engagement or through policing. As solidarity protests continue to attract criminal cases and heightened surveillance, the debate is no longer confined to education reforms—it is increasingly about whether constitutional rights can be meaningfully exercised when peaceful protest itself is treated as a law-and-order threat.

Related:

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests

From Protest to Petition: Maharashtra’s Public Safety Act in the dock

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post Brute Police Action: Mumbai’s crackdown on protestors in solidarity with CJP & Student Groups, AISF, SFI & AISA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

JUST IN | Massive crowds several thousands strong gathered at Jantar Mantar as mobile internet was shut down in parts of central Delhi. Protesters have had sporadic clashes with authorities according to emerging visuals. Even as security forces tried to hold the crowds at bay,… pic.twitter.com/PBgnPpefiZ

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

Visuals from the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar.

Tensions escalated as police moved in on protesters. These are moments captured from the ground, documenting the events as they unfolded.
Video: @nvm_nissss #JantarMantar #CJP #Delhi #GroundReport pic.twitter.com/CdukMeUcoa

— Velox India (@VeloxIndia) July 20, 2026

Protestors gather at the Jantar Mantar, in Delhi, as Cockroach Janta Party aims march to Parliament on July 20, 2026, to press for education reforms.

Meanwhile, no permission has been granted for the march planned by the CJP to Parliament on July 20, when both houses will… pic.twitter.com/Gxmg0A763T

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

The day unfolded against the backdrop of an intensifying political and legal battle. Sonam Wangchuk, who had become one of the most prominent face of the agitation, remained on hunger strike under medical supervision at Safdarjung Hospital after being removed from Jantar Mantar on July 18. Even after his hospitalisation, Wangchuk stated that he would continue his fast until the government took accountability for recent failures in the education system, particularly alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks, or until elected representatives assured him that the issues would be raised in Parliament.

Alongside Sonam Wangchuk’s fast, the protest also witnessed a sustained hunger strike by student activists associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA). Three students,  Neha, Manish and Aameen, continued their indefinite fast in solidarity with the wider movement, highlighting the direct impact that examination failures have had on young aspirants. Their protest lasted 23 days before they decided to conclude the fast on July 20 following an appeal from a delegation comprising parliamentarians, civil society representatives and public figures, who urged them to continue the struggle through parliamentary intervention and public campaigns.

Meanwhile, as protesters attempted to march towards Parliament, Delhi witnessed a major security mobilisation, with barricades, police deployment, paramilitary forces and restrictions on movement around central areas. Reports of state violence, allegations of force against protesters and the police denial of such allegations intensified the debate over the State’s handling of peaceful dissent. The administration justified its actions on grounds of public order and Parliament security, while protesters argued that preventive restrictions were being used to silence a movement demanding accountability.

And it has finally begun.

Security personnel using lathicharge to disperse crowd at CJP protest in Delhi. pic.twitter.com/JYTNKLq0Tj

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) July 20, 2026

#WATCH | Delhi | Protesters gathered for CJP’s protest march clash with RPF personnel at Jantar Mantar; RPF personnel & police use lathis for crowd control pic.twitter.com/gijaCjJksW

— ANI (@ANI) July 20, 2026

VIDEO | CJP March: Protesters run amok, riot control units fire teargas near Patel Chowk.

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/n147TvrpG7) pic.twitter.com/P5E5ATteiT

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) July 20, 2026

Delhi : Security intensified outside Parliament amid CJP protest and threats from the protesters. pic.twitter.com/QUSNG2DDY4

— News Arena India (@NewsArenaIndia) July 20, 2026

The developments of July 20 therefore marked a decisive moment in the agitation. What began as a demand from students for answers over the credibility of India’s examination system had evolved into a larger constitutional contest — involving the right to peaceful protest, the State’s power to regulate public assemblies, the autonomy of an individual undertaking a hunger strike, and the responsibility of democratic institutions to respond to public grievances.

The Origins: A movement born out of the NEET crisis

The immediate trigger for the mobilisation was the controversy surrounding the NEET-UG 2026 examination held on May 3, 2026. Allegations of a paper leak and compromise of examination integrity led the National Testing Agency to cancel the examination on May 12, 2026 and announce a fresh examination, which was subsequently conducted on June 21, 2026.

The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) determines admission to medical colleges across the country and is viewed by lakhs of aspirants as a decisive examination shaping their academic and professional future. Allegations of malpractice and procedural failures therefore generated widespread anger among students, parents and civil society groups who questioned whether the examination system had failed to protect fairness and merit.

The controversy acquired a deeper human dimension as reports emerged of severe distress among students, including suicides allegedly linked to examination-related pressures and uncertainty surrounding the results. For many protesters, the issue was not limited to a single examination irregularity but reflected a larger crisis of accountability in India’s competitive examination system.

Against this backdrop, students and civil society groups began mobilising, demanding transparency, an impartial investigation into the alleged irregularities, accountability of those responsible, and measures to restore confidence in the examination process.

The movement found a visible presence at Jantar Mantar, a historic site of democratic protest in New Delhi. Located within close proximity to Parliament, Jantar Mantar has for decades served as a space where citizens, students, workers and civil society organisations have brought grievances directly into the public sphere.

For the protesters, gathering at Jantar Mantar was not merely an act of demonstration. It represented a constitutional appeal to the State — a demand that institutions responsible for administering examinations affecting millions of young people must answer questions of fairness, transparency and accountability.

Sonam Wangchuk enters the movement

Sonam Wangchuk’s decision to join the protest brought further national attention to a mobilisation that had already grown into a significant movement involving students, parents, civil society groups and supporters across the country. His decision to begin an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on June 28, 2026 became one of the defining moment in the agitation. Wangchuk stated that his fast was aimed at securing accountability for recent failures affecting students, including alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks. However, the articulation of his demands evolved during the course of the protest. While the wider CJP-led mobilisation had prominently raised the demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Wangchuk’s later conditions for ending the fast focused primarily on government acknowledgement of failures in the education system, parliamentary discussion on education accountability, and assurances from elected representatives that reforms would be taken up.

His entry into the agitation was significant because hunger strikes in India carry a long political and constitutional history. From Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagrahas to later public movements, fasting has frequently been used as a method of moral persuasion rather than physical confrontation.

Wangchuk began his indefinite hunger strike on June 28, 2026, at Jantar Mantar. According to Indian Express reports, he continued the fast for more than 21 days, maintaining that his objective was to compel political accountability rather than engage in confrontation with the State.  His decision immediately elevated the visibility of the protest. Supporters viewed the hunger strike as an expression of Gandhian resistance — a voluntary sacrifice intended to draw attention to institutional failure.

The government’s response, however, increasingly centred around a different concern: the deterioration of Wangchuk’s health and the State’s responsibility to prevent serious medical harm. That conflict would eventually become the central legal issue before the Delhi High Court.

Three Weeks of Escalation: From local protest to national attention

For nearly three weeks, the protest site at Jantar Mantar gradually became a focal point of public mobilisation. The early phase was marked by daily gatherings, student participation, speeches and solidarity visits. Over time, the presence of Wangchuk’s hunger strike attracted wider attention from civil society groups, public personalities and political figures.

The movement’s messaging expanded beyond the immediate examination controversy. It increasingly raised questions about:

• accountability of public institutions;
• transparency in governance;
• the treatment of students affected by systemic failures;
• the responsiveness of elected representatives.

The symbolism of an elderly activist undertaking a prolonged fast outside Parliament added further political weight. By mid-July, the protest had become a significant public mobilisation rather than an isolated demonstration. Media reports noted that supporters had planned a march towards Parliament during the Monsoon Session, increasing administrative concern over crowd management and law-and-order issues.

The State’s Intervention: From silence to medical enforcement

As Sonam Wangchuk’s indefinite hunger strike entered its third week, the nature of the State’s response came under increasing scrutiny. The protest was not merely about the continuation of a fast; it was rooted in demands for accountability over the NEET examination crisis, alleged failures in ensuring the integrity of the examination process, and the distress faced by thousands of students whose academic futures had been affected.

During the initial phase of the protest, the authorities did not undertake any visible intervention to address these larger concerns or engage meaningfully with the demands being raised by students and civil society groups. Despite Wangchuk’s prolonged fast at Jantar Mantar and growing public attention, the administration did not immediately attempt to remove him from the protest site or directly intervene in the course of the agitation.

The State’s intervention came later, primarily through the lens of Wangchuk’s health condition. This shift — from limited engagement with the substantive demands of the movement to active intervention on medical grounds — became one of the central issues of contestation before the Delhi High Court.

Instead of directly interacting with the protester, the matter reached the Delhi High Court through proceedings concerning medical monitoring of Wangchuk’s condition. The Court’s intervention at that stage was limited: it sought to ensure that his health was being regularly monitored and that necessary medical assistance remained available. Crucially, the Court did not direct the termination of the hunger strike. It did not authorise the forcible removal of Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar or permit the State to override his expressed choice regarding the continuation of his protest.

The petitioners later argued that the administration transformed a limited judicial direction regarding medical supervision into a justification for a far more intrusive action — physically removing Wangchuk from the protest site and shifting him to a hospital against the wishes of those supporting the protest. The controversy therefore was not merely about medical care; it was about the scope of executive power.

The July 18: Removal from Jantar Mantar

On July 18, after Wangchuk had completed more than three weeks of fasting, Delhi Police removed him from the Jantar Mantar protest site and shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital. The police justified the action on medical grounds, stating that Wangchuk’s condition had deteriorated and that the intervention was undertaken to protect his health. Reports by The Indian Express stated that police relied on medical advice and referred to the earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court while explaining the decision. However, the manner of the removal became the immediate subject of controversy.

Protesters alleged that the police action amounted to the forced removal of a peaceful demonstrator and argued that the State had used health concerns as a justification to break up the protest. Visuals from the site showed heavy police presence and officers surrounding Wangchuk during the transfer, leading supporters to allege the use of unnecessary force. The police disputed these allegations, maintaining that the action was carried out with restraint and that intervention became necessary after resistance from protesters.

The State defended its actions on the ground that it was not attempting to suppress dissent but fulfilling its constitutional obligation to protect life. According to the authorities, once medical concerns became serious, allowing the fast to continue without intervention would have amounted to neglect of a citizen’s welfare. The protesters, however, viewed the intervention differently.

They argued that Wangchuk was a consenting adult exercising a political choice and that the State had converted a concern for health into an instrument to interrupt a lawful protest. In their view, the right to peaceful dissent includes the freedom to choose the form and intensity of protest, including voluntary fasting.

The dispute therefore brought three constitutional guarantees into direct tension:

• Article 19(1)(a): the freedom of speech and expression, which includes political communication and dissent;
• Article 19(1)(b): the right to assemble peacefully;
• Article 21: the right to life and personal liberty, which includes bodily autonomy and decisional freedom.

The question before the Court was not whether the State valued life. The question was whether the State could protect life by overriding the very autonomy that constitutional liberty seeks to preserve.

July 19: Gitanjali Angmo’s moves Delhi HC to challenge state overreach

After Wangchuk was shifted to hospital, Dr Gitanjali Angmo approached the Delhi High Court challenging the manner in which he was removed from Jantar Mantar. As per LiveLaw, the petition raised several concerns:

• alleged use of force by police;
• denial of access to family members, lawyers and preferred doctors;
• shifting Wangchuk to a medical facility without his consent;
• interference with his choice of medical treatment;
• violation of bodily autonomy.

The petition did not argue that the State had no interest in Wangchuk’s health.

Rather, it questioned whether that interest could override an adult citizen’s voluntary decision regarding his own body. The constitutional argument was anchored in the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on privacy and autonomy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as intrinsic to liberty under Article 21, including decisional autonomy and the ability of individuals to make personal choices.

The petitioners argued that this principle extended to the choice of undertaking a hunger strike — a method of political expression historically associated with non-violent resistance. Appearing for Dr Angmo, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the State could not convert concern for health into a justification for overriding individual autonomy. As per Livelaw, his submission was that Wangchuk was a conscious adult who had voluntarily chosen the method of protest. The issue, he argued, was not whether fasting was medically advisable. The issue was whether the State could impose its own assessment of an individual’s welfare over that individual’s own decision.

Sibal questioned the circumstances surrounding Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar and argued that a peaceful protester could not be treated as someone incapable of making decisions merely because the State disagreed with those decisions.

The argument placed the case within the broader constitutional debate surrounding:

• informed consent;
• medical autonomy;
• dignity under Article 21;
• the right to dissent.

The petitioners emphasised that democratic rights become meaningful precisely when citizens are allowed to adopt unpopular or inconvenient forms of protest.

The state’s position: Representing the government, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) defended the police action. The State’s position was that the removal was not an attempt to suppress the protest but a necessary intervention to protect Wangchuk’s life. The ASG argued that the authorities were acting on medical advice and that the State could not remain passive when a person’s health was deteriorating after an extended fast. The government’s argument rested on a different understanding of Article 21.

While the petitioners relied on Article 21 as a guarantee of autonomy and choice, the State relied on Article 21 as imposing a positive obligation to protect life.

The government’s submission effectively was: A citizen’s autonomy is important, but the State cannot ignore a situation where there is a serious risk to life.

The court’s balancing act: The proceedings before Justice Mini Pushkarna exposed a difficult constitutional contradiction: a State that claims to protect life may, in doing so, risk undermining the very liberty that gives democratic protest its meaning.

The central issue before the Court was not simply whether Sonam Wangchuk required medical attention. It was whether the State could use concern for his health as a basis to override the choice of an adult citizen who had voluntarily adopted hunger strike as a form of political expression.

The petitioners’ argument went to the heart of the controversy — that the State had not acted with the same urgency when the protesters were demanding accountability over the NEET examination crisis, but became interventionist when it sought to regulate the manner in which that protest was being conducted. The grievance was not that the State cared about Wangchuk’s health; it was that the State appeared willing to engage with the physical consequences of the protest while remaining unresponsive to the institutional failures that had triggered it.

A crucial aspect of the challenge was the alleged expansion of the Delhi High Court’s earlier order. The Court’s initial intervention was limited to ensuring medical monitoring of Wangchuk’s condition. It did not direct that the hunger strike be discontinued, nor did it authorise the forcible removal of the protester from Jantar Mantar. The petitioners argued that the administration effectively converted a judicial direction intended as a safeguard into a justification for coercive State action.

The Court, however, accepted the State’s explanation that shifting Wangchuk to hospital was not arbitrary in the circumstances. It recognised that a prolonged hunger strike carries genuine medical risks and that the State cannot be expected to remain a passive observer when a person’s health is seriously compromised. Yet, this reasoning raises a larger constitutional concern.

If the State can intervene whenever it believes that an individual is making a self-harming political choice, the boundary between protection and paternalism becomes dangerously blurred. Democratic dissent is rarely comfortable. Protest movements often involve inconvenience, sacrifice and personal hardship. The constitutional protection of protest cannot depend upon whether the State considers the method of protest reasonable, appropriate or medically advisable.

A hunger strike is fundamentally different from violent or disruptive forms of protest. Its political force lies in voluntary self-denial. The protester does not impose physical harm upon others; instead, the protester places their own body at the centre of political communication. Historically, hunger strikes have been used precisely because conventional channels of accountability have failed or have been perceived to have failed.

The constitutional difficulty, therefore, was not whether the State had an interest in preserving life. It undoubtedly does. The more difficult question was whether the State could preserve life by overriding a conscious political choice made by an informed adult citizen. The controversy surrounding the administration of potassium during Wangchuk’s hospitalisation further exposed this tension. Medical intervention in such circumstances cannot be treated as a purely clinical matter. When a person’s medical condition is directly connected to an act of political protest, questions of consent, autonomy and transparency become inseparable from questions of healthcare.

The petitioners’ concern was not merely about the treatment administered. It was about who retained control over decisions affecting Wangchuk’s body after the State intervened. The State maintained that medical decisions were taken on professional advice and in response to his condition. However, the episode demonstrated the constitutional risks that arise when State power enters the doctor-patient relationship. A person does not surrender bodily autonomy merely because they become a patient.

The concerns regarding access to family members, lawyers and independent medical opinion raised an equally important issue. Wangchuk was not a person detained under criminal law. He had not been deprived of liberty through any judicial process. He was a citizen who had been participating in a public protest and was subsequently removed by State action.

In such circumstances, a hospital cannot become a space where constitutional protections are diluted. Medical care cannot operate as a zone of reduced liberty where communication, consultation and independent oversight become matters of administrative discretion.

The Court’s final approach reflected an attempt at compromise. It refused to hold the State action arbitrary and accepted the government’s justification for hospitalisation. At the same time, it did not recognise an unlimited State power to interfere with protest or personal choice. However, the larger constitutional question remains unresolved.

The danger in cases such as these is not always overt suppression of dissent. It is the possibility of a softer form of restriction — where the language of welfare, safety and protection gradually becomes a justification for limiting inconvenient political expression. Article 19 protects not only popular speech but also uncomfortable dissent. Article 21 protects not only life but also autonomy, dignity and the freedom to make personal choices. A constitutional democracy must therefore ask not merely whether State intervention is well-intentioned, but whether it is proportionate and necessary.

The Wangchuk litigation ultimately leaves behind a fundamental question: When a citizen uses their own body as the instrument of protest, does the State’s duty to protect life permit intervention — or does such intervention risk transforming protection into control?

The complete order may be viewed here:

July 20: The protest moves towards parliament

While the legal challenge over Sonam Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar was being argued before the Delhi High Court, the movement on the ground entered a new phase. The protest, which had begun around demands for accountability over the NEET examination crisis, had by then grown into a larger mobilisation involving students, civil society groups and supporters from across the country. The proposed “Chalo Sansad” march on July 20, 2026 was intended to take these demands directly to Parliament, with protesters seeking accountability over alleged examination irregularities and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

The choice of destination was deeply symbolic. For the protesters, Parliament represented the institution answerable to citizens. The march was projected not as an attempt to obstruct legislative functioning, but as an assertion of the democratic right to place grievances before elected representatives. However, for the administration, the timing of the march — coinciding with the opening day of Parliament’s Monsoon Session — raised concerns regarding security, crowd management and the protection of high-security government installations.

By the evening of July 19, the hours preceding the march saw central Delhi transformed into a heavily controlled zone. Reporting from The Indian Express described Jantar Mantar as witnessing an unprecedented security build-up, with riot-control vehicles, barricades and large deployments of Delhi Police personnel across key areas of the capital. IE reported that more than 1,200 Delhi Police personnel were deployed around VIP areas and Delhi borders, while additional forces were positioned around Parliament and routes leading to it.

According to The Indian Express, the protest site was overflowing with students and supporters, with footpaths lined with tents housing those who had joined the hunger strike for days and weeks. Protesters gathered under banners and slogans, while volunteers prepared for the next day’s march. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke appealed for discipline and repeatedly emphasised that the success of the protest depended on maintaining peace, conveying a message reportedly also given by Sonam Wangchuk from hospital.

The administration, however, treated the proposed march as a potential security challenge. Delhi Police stated that no permission had been sought or granted for a procession towards Parliament. A prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 was imposed in the New Delhi district, restricting gatherings and processions. In a public advisory, police warned that unauthorised marches and assemblies would invite legal action, including proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Security personnel continue to target CJP protestors using tear gas. https://t.co/iWiueWBfcm pic.twitter.com/ydqOtoSvp7

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) July 20, 2026

CJP Protest | Police fired tear gas shells as protesters attempted to move towards Parliament during the CJP march. Heavy security remains deployed across central Delhi amid heightened tensions.

Live Updates: https://t.co/9MiFsaawxj pic.twitter.com/CPaxfO7puC

— The Wire (@thewire_in) July 20, 2026

#Watch | Delhi Police used sticks and batons to disperse hundreds of students and youth activists marching from Mandi House Metro Station towards Jantar Mantar in an attempt to reach the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest site on Monday, eyewitnesses said. The protesters,… pic.twitter.com/3wiokZ3vyC

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

JUST IN | Visuals from the march led by Cockroach Janta Party enroute to the Parliament

Video: Special Arrangementhttps://t.co/o7I5R010Wv pic.twitter.com/3gqPtAHxs7

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

The invocation of Section 163 became one of the central points of contestation. While authorities justified the restrictions on the basis of Parliament security and public order, protesters questioned whether preventive powers were being used to regulate a peaceful political demonstration rather than respond to any actual threat of violence.

The constitutional difficulty with such restrictions is not whether the State can regulate public assemblies. It undoubtedly can. The right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) is subject to reasonable restrictions. However, the repeated use of preventive orders raises a larger question: whether administrative convenience and security concerns are being expanded into a general power to prevent citizens from carrying their grievances into public spaces.

On July 20, as protesters prepared to begin the march, the security presence around Jantar Mantar intensified further. The Indian Express reported that multiple layers of barricades were installed, roads around Parliament were blocked and large contingents of police and paramilitary personnel were deployed. The report stated that additional officers were called from different districts, with more than 2,000 paramilitary personnel deployed across New Delhi district.

PUBLIC ADVISORY

In view of reports of a proposed march to Parliament by CJP on 20.07.2026 (Monday), Delhi Police hereby categorically clarifies that no permission has been sought or granted for any such protest march/procession.

Prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS…

— DCP New Delhi (@DCPNewDelhi) July 19, 2026

A senior police officer, as reported by The Indian Express, told organisers that the possibility of a stampede was a concern and urged them to reconsider the movement of such a large crowd. The protesters responded that they had consistently maintained discipline and that the administration was using security concerns to prevent the march itself.

As the march began, thousands of protesters continued gathering despite rain and restrictions. According to Deccan Herald, citing PTI, some protesters attempting to reach the Jantar Mantar site from Mandi House alleged that police used force, including claims of lathi-charge. Delhi Police denied the allegations, stating on social media that “no such incident has taken place” and that the protest was being handled professionally. The conflicting accounts reflected the broader dispute over the proportionality of police action.

The authorities also temporarily restricted access to certain metro stations, including Janpath, Patel Chowk, Rajiv Chowk, Central Secretariat and Seva Teerth, citing security concerns. Roads leading towards Parliament were barricaded, and movement around central Delhi was tightly controlled.

For protesters, these measures represented the State’s attempt to contain a movement demanding accountability from those in power. They argued that a democracy cannot celebrate the right to protest in principle while restricting citizens whenever they attempt to approach the institutions they seek to question.

For the administration, the restrictions represented a legitimate exercise of responsibility to protect Parliament, maintain public order and prevent possible disorder. The Chalo Sansad march therefore became more than a dispute over one procession route. It brought into focus a recurring constitutional tension: whether the State’s responsibility to maintain order is being exercised to protect democracy, or whether it is being used to limit the very democratic expression that creates accountability.

July 20: Negotiations and government outreach

Even as incidents of chaos were being reported, on July 20, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das announced on X that he, along with Ashutosh Ranka, was travelling to meet BJP president and senior Union Minister J.P. Nadda after receiving a communication from the government seeking talks. Das wrote: “It’s 11:52 AM. Ashutosh Ranka and I, on behalf of the Cockroach Janta Party, are on our way to meet JP Nadda. The government had reached out for talks in the morning. Our demands are clear. The youth have gathered in huge numbers.”

CJP representatives maintained that any engagement would have to address the core issues that had brought students to the streets — accountability for alleged examination irregularities, responsibility for failures in the examination system, and assurances that similar crises would not recur.

As per the report of The Hindu, the CJP rejected offers to meet the District Magistrate, a Union Government Secretary, and a Minister of State, insisting on talks with the Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister.

Solidarity across India

As the Delhi protest continued, solidarity demonstrations emerged in several parts of the country. As reported by FinancialExpress.com, activists and students in cities including Hyderabad, Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur, and Ahilya Nagar have organized rallies to demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and to protest the forced hospitalization of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.

Mumbai: In Mumbai, the state’s restrictive approach to public assembly has turned the city into a theater of confrontation. Supporters gathered at Shivaji Park on July 19, 2026, after being denied permission to demonstrate at Azad Maidan or other locations in South Mumbai. According to The Indian Express, a senior police officer justified this denial by citing the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025, which prohibit protests on weekends and public holidays.

The atmosphere at Shivaji Park was charged, with Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray calling for a nationwide agitation. The Indian Express noted that Thackeray escalated the rhetoric, arguing that the demand for the Education Minister’s resignation was a “small issue” and that the broader struggle must be to “change the government”. During the protest, participants raised concerns that structural failures in the examination system are consistently harming the future of the nation’s youth.

The Mumbai Police’s response has been marked by a series of legal actions. The Indian Express reported that on July 18, the police registered two FIRs against protesters for violating the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025. Specifically:

• A case was filed at the Marine Drive Police Station against NCP (SP) student leaders for protesting outside the state secretariat.
• A second FIR was registered at the Azad Maidan Police Station against activist-writer Sudhir Dhawale and others for protesting near the Press Club, with charges including unlawful assembly and disobedience of public servant orders.

Pune: In Pune, the movement saw hundreds gather at Balgandharva Chowk to express solidarity with Wangchuk and demand systemic educational reforms. The Indian Express reported that the demonstration became tense when police moved to disperse the crowd, leading to the detention of several protesters who refused to comply with official instructions. Participants, including educators and students, emphasized that the NEET issue is a symptom of a larger lack of accountability within the government, stressing that the youth’s faith in the education system is at risk.

Bengaluru: Meanwhile, The Hindu reported that over 1,000 people gathered at Freedom Park in Bengaluru on July 19 to protest the NEET paper leak and the “deteriorating democratic system”. The gathering evolved into a forum for broader societal critique; actor Kishor Kumar urged attendees to ensure the momentum is not limited to NEET but extends to support for farmers, labourers, and other marginalized groups. Young participants, such as 13-year-old Sohan and student Kavya, highlighted a growing sense of disillusionment, questioning what the future holds if the state continues to evade accountability for its failures.

Support gatherings were also reported from:

• Hyderabad;
• Nagpur;
• Indore;
• Jammu;
• Guwahati;

July 20: Updates on the hunger strikes

Even after being shifted from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung Hospital, Sonam Wangchuk continued his hunger strike, making it clear that his decision to end the fast would depend not on his medical condition alone but on whether the larger concerns that triggered the movement received a political response.

On July 20, ahead of the proposed “Chalo Sansad” march, Wangchuk issued a handwritten note titled “WHEN WILL I END THE FAST….!”, laying down the circumstances under which he would withdraw his indefinite fast. As reported by The Times of India and other media outlets, the conditions focused on accountability for failures in the education system, particularly alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks.

Significantly, while the broader CJP movement had consistently raised the demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Wangchuk’s stated conditions for ending his fast did not specifically include the Education Minister’s resignation. Instead, he framed the issue in terms of institutional accountability and corrective action.

Wangchuk stated that he would end the fast if the government accepted responsibility for the “recent failures in the education system”, including alleged paper leaks. Alternatively, he said the fast would end if he and CJP leadership were able to reach Parliament and receive assurances from Members of Parliament and leaders of various political parties that the issues raised by the protesters would be taken up during the Monsoon Session.

He also stated that if his health or circumstances prevented him from participating in the march, MPs and political leaders should visit him at the hospital and provide similar assurances.

The conditions reflected a shift in focus from the immediate symbolism of the hunger strike to the larger political objective of securing parliamentary attention on the education crisis. Wangchuk’s message emphasised that the protest was not centred around one individual but around the concerns of students affected by alleged failures in the examination system.

In a message shared through his wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, Wangchuk reiterated that he was not the “cause” of the movement but merely a voice for young people who were seeking accountability. Angmo, speaking outside Safdarjung Hospital after the Delhi High Court hearing, said that the proposed march to Parliament would continue and that Wangchuk had consistently maintained that the movement belonged to the youth.

Meanwhile, Wangchuk’s health remained under medical supervision. A health bulletin issued by Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) and Safdarjung Hospital on July 20 stated that he continued to receive medical care and that his vital parameters were stable, but his blood parameters required close observation. The hospital stated that continued clinical monitoring and medical intervention remained necessary, with a multidisciplinary team supervising his condition.

Alongside the broader mobilisation, students associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA) also undertook hunger strikes in solidarity with the movement.  The three student activists, Neha, Manish and Aameen, concluded their hunger strike after 23 days. Their decision came following an appeal by a delegation comprising parliamentarians, civil society representatives and public figures, who urged them to continue the struggle through parliamentary engagement and public campaigns rather than through continued fasting.

AISA stated that the students had suffered significant physical consequences during the fast, including substantial weight loss and dangerously low blood sugar levels. Their withdrawal marked a transition in one phase of the student-led protest, even as the broader mobilisation continued through the march towards Parliament.

Conclusion: From examination failure to a crisis of accountability

The July 20 developments marked a decisive shift in the nature of the education protest. What began as a demand from students affected by alleged examination irregularities became a wider confrontation over how the State responds when institutional failures generate public anger.

The central demand of the movement remained unchanged: accountability for the failures that undermined confidence in India’s competitive examination system. The protests were not merely about the cancellation of an examination or the consequences of a paper leak. For thousands of students, the issue represented a deeper fear that years of preparation, personal sacrifice and aspirations could be undermined by failures within institutions responsible for ensuring fairness.

The escalation of the movement, however, shifted attention from the original grievance to the State’s handling of dissent. Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike became the symbol of this transition. The events surrounding the Chalo Sansad march further exposed this tension. The government’s decision to prevent protesters from moving towards Parliament was defended on grounds of security and public order. Yet, for protesters, the restrictions raised a fundamental concern: if citizens cannot approach elected representatives with grievances affecting millions of young people, where does democratic accountability occur?

Related:

India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests

From Protest to Petition: Maharashtra’s Public Safety Act in the dock

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 19, police authorities detained activist Amit Bhatnagar after he completed 14 days of an indefinite hunger strike at Kupi village in Chhatarpur district. Around 150 protesters were also removed from the site and transported in buses. The action effectively ended a fortnight-long agitation led by villagers opposing alleged irregularities in land acquisition, rehabilitation and compensation under the ₹44,605-crore Ken-Betwa river-linking project.

VIDEO | Madhya Pradesh police removed protesters and ended the ‘satyagraha’ that was launched against the Ken-Betwa Link Project and other irrigation schemes.

The protest, mainly by tribal women, was being held on the banks of the Barana river near Kupi village in Chhatarpur… pic.twitter.com/8cyMPglsJm

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) July 19, 2026

Madhya Pradesh Police on Sunday cleared the tribal protest site against the Ken-Betwa river link project in Chhatarpur and shifted protest leader Amit Bhatnagar, who had been on a 14-day hunger strike, to a hospital. Authorities said the action was taken due to rising river… pic.twitter.com/DCUoRW1knQ

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 19, 2026

ANOTHER PROTEST SUPPRESSED……
“JAL SATHYAGRAH” DISMANTLED…..
#Chhatarpur #MadhyaPradesh
In the GUISE OF MEDICS, Police forcedly removed protesting #Adivasis at Barana river, against the 𝐊𝐞𝐧-𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐚 𝐑𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭. https://t.co/dlqLEByqzh pic.twitter.com/pcEps9WbXW

— KALLURI (@I_KALLURI) July 19, 2026

While the administration claimed that Bhatnagar was moved to hospital due to concerns over his deteriorating health and that protesters were removed because rising water levels made the site unsafe, the manner in which the State dealt with a peaceful protest has raised concerns over the shrinking space for democratic dissent.

BREAKING: Fifteen-day-long protest against the Ken-Betwa Link Project in Madhya Pradesh’s Chhatarpur district ends abruptly. pic.twitter.com/BowAgfcseo

— Down To Earth (@down2earthindia) July 19, 2026

The Madhya Pradesh Police on Sunday (July 19, 2026) morning cleared the site where several tribals have been protesting against the Ken-Betwa river link project and other irrigation projects in Chhatarpur district, and took the protest leader Amit Bhatnagar, who has been on a… pic.twitter.com/R5OIowyzPY

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 19, 2026

The detention came merely a day after Delhi Police removed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk from his hunger strike site at Jantar Mantar, creating a broader debate over how governments respond to prolonged peaceful protests.

A hunger strike met with detention instead of dialogue

According to The Indian Express, Bhatnagar had been fasting since July 3, demanding a fresh review of compensation records, rehabilitation measures and alleged irregularities in land acquisition proceedings.

The activist, who has worked extensively on displacement and rehabilitation issues in Bundelkhand, became the face of the movement involving villagers from Daudhan, Palkhua, Sukwaha and neighbouring settlements affected by the proposed Daudhan reservoir.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations raised by protesters, the State’s immediate response was not the constitution of an independent inquiry or a transparent public hearing but the removal of protesters from the site. The police maintained that Bhatnagar was not arrested but “detained” and shifted to hospital considering his health condition.

Chhatarpur Additional Superintendent of Police Aditya Patle told The Indian Express: “Bhatnagar has not been arrested. He was on a fast for two weeks, and taking his health into account, we detained him and took him to the local hospital for treatment.”

However, the distinction between arrest and detention does little to address the larger democratic concern: whether the State can forcibly end a peaceful protest merely because it becomes politically inconvenient or uncomfortable.

A hunger strike is a recognised form of non-violent protest, historically used by social movements to draw attention to administrative failures. The State’s obligation in such circumstances is not merely to preserve order but also to engage with the grievances that compel citizens to undertake such extreme forms of protest.

“Safety” argument versus allegations of forced removal

The administration justified the action by citing heavy rainfall and rising water levels in the Barana river. Speaking to The Hindu, Chhatarpur Collector Parth Jaiswal said that the protest site had become unsafe due to increasing water levels and that the presence of women, children and elderly persons required intervention. However, protesters questioned whether safety concerns were being used as a justification to dismantle a movement raising serious questions about rehabilitation and compensation.

Videos from the site showed police personnel removing protesters, including women, from the river area. Demonstrators alleged that women were dragged away and that force was used during the removal.

While authorities denied allegations of assault, the incident raises a larger concern: whether administrative concern for safety can become a pretext for suppressing public assembly and collective resistance.

A democratic State cannot treat citizens raising grievances against displacement merely as a law-and-order problem.

Compensation allegations demand independent scrutiny

The core of the protest lies in allegations that the rehabilitation process for affected families has been opaque and unfair. Speaking to The Indian Express before his detention, Bhatnagar alleged: “The government has not been fair and transparent in its land acquisition process. There are many irregularities in the disbursement of compensation.”

He alleged that records of Gram Sabha proceedings across villages including Ratiya, Kari, Khatwani, Palkhua, Naiyyapur, Khajuri and Sukwaha contained identical language, raising doubts over whether genuine consultations had taken place.

Such allegations assume significance because Gram Sabha participation is not merely a procedural requirement in tribal areas. Under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), local communities have a statutory role in decisions affecting their land and resources.

If Gram Sabha proceedings were merely reduced to paperwork, as alleged by protesters, it would undermine the very purpose of participatory governance. Bhatnagar also alleged irregularities in compensation payments in Kharihani village, claiming that while around ₹11 crore had been sanctioned for houses, nearly ₹8 crore was allegedly paid to individuals who either had no connection with the village or had migrated decades ago. He further alleged that genuinely affected families had been excluded from compensation lists. These claims require transparent investigation rather than dismissal as political opposition.

The State’s defence: protesters are not genuine beneficiaries

The administration, however, has rejected these allegations. According to The Indian Express, Chhatarpur Collector Parth Jaiswal claimed that only about 10% of protesters were directly affected by the Ken-Betwa project, while the remaining participants were linked to grievances concerning other projects in neighbouring Panna district.

The Collector also denied any irregularities in Gram Sabha records and said compensation paid in Kharihani was linked to agricultural land ownership and not residential status.

However, the administration’s argument that some protesters are not directly affected does not by itself answer the concerns raised by those who are affected.

Large infrastructure projects often, and rightly, generate collective resistance involving displaced families, neighbouring communities, environmental groups and civil society organisations. Limiting participation only to those whose names appear in official displacement lists risks ignoring broader social and ecological impacts.

Tribal rights and the question of consent

The controversy assumes greater importance because many protesting communities belong to tribal areas. Opposition leader Umang Singhar alleged that affected villagers were not properly consulted and that Social Impact Assessments and Gram Sabha processes were not conducted meaningfully.

Speaking to The Hindu, Singhar alleged that multiple Gram Sabha records contained identical language and questioned whether tribal communities had genuinely participated in decisions affecting their land. The issue strikes at the heart of the constitutional promise of decentralised governance. For communities facing displacement, compensation is not merely a financial transaction. Land represents livelihood, identity, cultural connection and social security. A rehabilitation package cannot substitute for meaningful participation before decisions are taken.

Environmental costs ignored in the development narrative

The issue and reason for protest around Ken-Betwa is not limited to compensation. The project has also faced criticism because significant portions of the project area fall within the ecological landscape of the Panna National Park and Tiger Reserve. Environmental groups have raised concerns regarding forest loss, biodiversity impacts and the consequences of altering river ecosystems.

The larger question is whether environmental approvals and rehabilitation measures are being treated as substantive safeguards or merely as procedural hurdles before construction begins. The events at Kupi village reflect a larger pattern in India’s development disputes: communities displaced by highways, dams, mining projects and industrial corridors frequently find themselves fighting not only for compensation but also for recognition.

The State’s duty in such conflicts is not restricted to acquiring land and completing projects. It includes ensuring transparency, protecting constitutional freedoms and creating mechanisms where affected citizens can challenge decisions without facing coercive action. The detention of Amit Bhatnagar and removal of protesters may have cleared the protest site, but it has not resolved the questions raised by the movement.

The central issue remains: can development projects claim legitimacy when the voices of those who bear the greatest social and environmental costs are addressed through police action rather than democratic engagement?

Related:

India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests

From Protest to Petition: Maharashtra’s Public Safety Act in the dock

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post Ken-Betwa protest exposes the cost of state-led displacement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The bench was conducting a hearing on a writ petition filed by Prasenjit Bose. Bose is the chairperson of the SIR committee of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee. His petition sought various directions and reliefs intended to streamline the hearing processes within the appellate tribunals. These tribunals were specifically constituted to adjudicate the appeals of individuals who have been excluded from the electoral rolls during the SIR exercise.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court pointed out that the ultimate authority to decide the citizenship status of a person in India does not rest with the Election Commission of India. The bench observed that the Election Commission cannot determine whether a person is a citizen of India or not. The court noted that it had previously communicated to the Election Commission that the list of people whose citizenship credentials are doubtful must be forwarded to the Union government, as the central government is the competent authority to determine matters of citizenship.

Constitutional boundaries and the Election Commission’s role

The proceedings placed a significant focus on the constitutional authority of the Election Commission of India. Justice Bagchi highlighted the Supreme Court’s prior judgment concerning the Bihar SIR process. In that judgment, the court had clarified the jurisdictional limits of the Election Commission.

Justice Bagchi orally noted that the Election Commission is not a constitutional authority with the power to adjudicate citizenship status under the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Specifically, the court referred to Articles 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Constitution. Articles 9, 10, and 11 deal directly with the loss, continuance, and regulation of Indian citizenship. Article 12 defines the term “State” for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights.

The court reiterated that while the Election Commission holds the constitutional authority to remove names from the electoral roll if a person’s citizenship is considered doubtful, this administrative action regarding voter eligibility does not amount to a legal determination of citizenship.

As reported in LiveLaw, Justice Bagchi stated, “Our judgment is clear – ECI is not a constitutional authority with regard to status under Art 9, 10, 11 and 12…ECI has control over rolls. It can decide not to include someone. However, that does not result in loss of status of citizenship per se. Therefore, we have given corresponding duty.”

The bench further detailed the procedural duty of the Election Commission. Once an individual is removed from the electoral roll due to doubtful citizenship, the Election Commission is obligated to submit an application to the central government so that their citizenship status can be formally determined.

According to LiveLaw, Justice Bagchi said, “We are conscious of this. In our Bihar SIR judgment, we made clear that ECI has a corresponding duty that as soon as there is a decision, it has to refer to the Ministry for adjudication under Citizenship Act. Unless that is done, status must go on”.

The scale of the appellate backlog in West Bengal

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared on behalf of the petitioner during the hearing. He presented statistical data to the bench regarding the massive backlog of appeals currently pending before the appellate tribunals in West Bengal.

Sankaranarayanan submitted that approximately 34 lakh appeals remain pending adjudication. These appeals have been filed by individuals whose names were removed from the electoral rolls during the SIR exercise. He pointed out that there are currently 19 appellate tribunals assigned to handle these cases. However, he informed the court that two judges from these tribunals have resigned, further impacting the capacity to clear the backlog.

The senior advocate highlighted that only a very small fraction of the total appeals has been decided thus far. According to the data presented, around 38,000 appeals have been disposed of by the tribunals. Sankaranarayanan noted that the track record of these decided cases shows that at least 70 percent of the appeals have been allowed, resulting in the restoration of the appellants’ names to the electoral rolls.

Denial of welfare benefits and civil rights

The core grievance raised in the petition relates to the consequences faced by individuals while their appeals remain pending before the tribunals. Sankaranarayanan argued that the West Bengal government has linked the deletion of names from the electoral roll with the denial of essential welfare benefits.

The senior counsel submitted that the state government issued notifications in May and June directing the deletion of beneficiaries from various welfare schemes based entirely on the SIR exercise data. He highlighted that affected persons are being denied benefits under the Public Distribution System (PDS), which is crucial for food security. Additionally, welfare measures such as the Annapurna Yojana are being withdrawn from those whose names have been deleted from the voter lists.

The deprivation extends beyond welfare schemes. Sankaranarayanan informed the bench that even caste certificates are being denied to these individuals. The government notifications reportedly called for the re-verification of caste certificates belonging to persons excluded from the electoral rolls.

Sankaranarayanan emphasised that these individuals are facing severe hardships at the ground level due to the ongoing denial of citizenship benefits. He argued that the possession of a valid passport should be considered sufficient proof of citizenship. As reported by LiveLaw, he contended that if someone has a passport, “it should be a clear pass”.

The counsel’s argument on unanticipated consequences

Sankaranarayanan argued that the widespread withdrawal of welfare schemes and civil rights was an unanticipated consequence of the SIR exercise and the subsequent deletion of names. He suggested that neither the litigants nor the court had foreseen that the state government would utilise the electoral roll data to deny basic amenities to residents.

According to LiveLaw, Sankaranarayanan submitted to the bench, “I think to be fair, I don’t think either they disclosed or we apprehended at all that all these other welfare schemes which are available to people who reside here would also be withdrawn. I don’t think that was apprehended by your lordships because then I presume your lordships could add one sentence saying, while it’s being adjudicated, please don’t take other civil rights which are available to citizens.”

He elaborated on the sheer volume of people affected by this situation. With only 38,000 cases decided out of 34 lakh appeals, a massive population remains in a state of uncertainty.

Sankaranarayanan stated, “What I’m explaining is this: that after 34 lakh appeals that are pending, if only 38,000 have been disposed of, there are 33 and a half lakh that are still pending. Now, those 33 and a half lakh have all these things being withdrawn from them, while their appeals are pending, where at least the track record shows 70% of the appeals have been allowed…That deprivation will continue until the appeals are heard. So we are only suggesting mechanisms to try and ensure some transparency and accountability, and to assist those 19 tribunals,”.

Transparency and accountability demands for appellate tribunals

The writ petition, filed on July 8 detailed a series of requests aimed at making the appellate process more transparent, accountable, and accessible for the affected electors. The petition asserted that the current mechanisms lack publicly available guidelines, which disproportionately affects poor, rural, and marginalised electors who struggle to navigate the system.

The petitioner sought directions to the ECI and other relevant authorities to formulate and publish a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to govern the appellate process. Specifically, the plea requested a direction to the Union of India and the Election Commission to place the SOP framed on April 7, 2026, by a three-member judicial committee in the public domain. This SOP was previously referred to in a Supreme Court order dated April 13, 2026.

To ensure regular monitoring and public awareness, the petition also called for the publication of regular bulletins that would indicate the exact number of appeals heard and decided by the appellate tribunals.

Proposed reforms to the appeal mechanism

In addition to transparency measures, the petition sought concrete reforms to streamline the appeal mechanism and make it more elector-friendly. One of the key reliefs sought was a direction to permit appellants and their authorised representatives to appear before the appellate tribunals through video conferencing.

The petition also requested the court to mandate a strict timeline for serving hearing notices. It sought a direction ensuring that notices are served to the appellants at least seven days in advance of the hearing date. The plea requested that this service be conducted through both electronic means and physical service delivered by Booth Level Officers (BLOs).

To address the massive backlog, the petitioner prayed for a time-bound schedule for the disposal of all pending appeals before the next election takes place. The plea specifically requested that appeals originating from Municipal Corporation and Municipality areas receive priority in the hearing schedule.

To improve public awareness and accessibility, the petition sought a direction for the creation of a simplified, step-by-step guide explaining the appellate process. The plea requested that this guide be made available in Bangla, Hindi, and English languages.

Furthermore, the petition sought permission for electors whose names were deleted during any of the three stages of the SIR process—enumeration, claims and objections, and adjudication of logical discrepancy cases—to file appeals before the tribunals for the restoration of their names.

Greater disclosure of SIR data

The petition also demanded greater transparency in the overall SIR exercise through the public disclosure of relevant data. It sought directions to the respondents to disclose Assembly constituency-wise data regarding Form 6 applications, which are used for the inclusion of names, and Form 7 applications, which are used for objections and deletions.

The requested data includes the total number of applications submitted, admitted, and rejected during the claims and objections phase, as well as subsequent stages of the revision process.

Additionally, the petition called for the disclosure of the exact number of cases currently pending before the appellate tribunals in each Assembly constituency. It sought the breakdown of the number of appeals filed by deleted electors seeking restoration of their names, versus the number of appeals filed by the Election Commission seeking exclusion.

The plea also requested the publication of all data required under Formats 1 to 8 of the Election Commission of India Manual on Electoral Roll, 2024.

The Supreme Court bench acknowledged the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel. The bench observed that the issue regarding the speedy disposal of appeals could be raised before the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. However, the Supreme Court agreed to examine the substantive issues relating to the alleged use of SIR data by the state government for non-electoral purposes. Ultimately, the bench issued notice to the relevant authorities and re-listed the matter to be heard alongside other pleas challenging the West Bengal SIR exercise on August 25.

Related:

“Inside the SIR”: Booklet flags ‘mechanical disenfranchisement’ in electoral roll revision

VFD’s rebuttal of the Fadnavis’ Claims on Electoral Manipulation Allegations

VFD’s draft reports points to “electoral manipulation and irregularities” in Haryana and J&K 2024 assembly elections

Vote for Democracy (VFD) releases report on the conduct of General Election 2024

The Bihar Verdict 2025: How an election was engineered before votes were cast

The Stolen Franchise: Why the Election Commission cannot escape accountability

The post SC: ECI has no power to determine citizenship status based on electoral roll deletions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to The Hindu, farmer groups under the banner of the Desh Bachao Morcha, an umbrella platform comprising unions from several states, organised coordinated motorcycle rallies across Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Similar demonstrations were also held in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand as part of a nationwide mobilisation against the proposed trade agreement.

Farmer leaders have argued that the proposed agreement extends far beyond the import and export of a handful of commodities. They contend that negotiations could encompass agriculture, dairy, industry, digital trade, services, investment, energy, intellectual property rights and broader market access, making it a far-reaching economic arrangement with potentially significant implications for multiple sectors.

A major concern raised by the protesting organisations is the lack of transparency surrounding the negotiations. As reported by The Hindu, Desh Bachao Morcha coordinator Sarwan Singh Pandher questioned why the complete text of the proposed agreement had not been placed in the public domain, arguing that stakeholders were being asked to accept an arrangement whose full implications remained unknown.

Farmer leaders have repeatedly warned that the United States has long sought greater access to India’s agricultural and dairy markets. According to them, any reduction in import duties or easing of market restrictions could expose Indian farmers, particularly small and marginal cultivators, to competition from heavily subsidised American agricultural producers, adversely affecting domestic agriculture, dairy farming and small-scale industries.

The organisations have urged the Union government to prioritise the interests of farmers, agricultural labourers, small traders and domestic industries over external trade commitments. They have also called upon the Centre to safeguard India’s food and economic sovereignty by refraining from entering into any agreement that they believe could undermine rural livelihoods.

The protests have brought together a broad coalition of farmer organisations across states. The Hindu reported that Punjab witnessed participation from groups including the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (Non-Political), the Azad Kisan Morcha, the Bharatiya Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Organisation and the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Boka Singh Mansa). In Haryana, organisations such as BKU (Chaduni), Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Morcha Haryana and BKU Shaheed Bhagat Singh joined the demonstrations, while farmer groups in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh also staged coordinated protests.

Warning of an escalation if their concerns remain unaddressed, farmer leaders announced that the ongoing mobilisation would culminate in a large “Maha Rally” in New Delhi on July 21.

The agitation gathered further momentum during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Punjab, with several organisations staging demonstrations and raising black flags while reiterating demands for a statutory guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP). As reported by The Hindu, activists of the Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee (KMSC) burned an effigy of the Central government near Amritsar’s Golden Gate, accusing the Centre of pursuing policies that favour corporate interests over farmers and agricultural workers.

KMSC leaders also alleged that district president Salwinder Singh Jania had been placed under house detention to prevent his participation in the protests, warning that such actions would only strengthen the ongoing agitation. They further demanded that the Prime Minister publicly explain how the proposed India–US trade agreement would benefit Indian farmers and agricultural labourers, insisting that any policy encouraging greater corporate control over agriculture was unacceptable.

The organisations simultaneously reiterated their long-standing demand for a legal guarantee of MSP, describing it as indispensable for protecting farmers against fluctuating market prices and ensuring stable agricultural incomes.

Beyond the trade agreement, protesters also criticised the Punjab government’s land pooling policy, alleging that it could facilitate the acquisition of fertile agricultural land for commercial development at the expense of cultivators. Farmer leaders asserted that they would continue resisting the policy until it was withdrawn.

The Kisan Mazdoor Morcha also organised district-level protests across Punjab during the Prime Minister’s visit. According to The Hindu, Sarwan Singh Pandher stated that the organisation would simultaneously raise issues relating to farm loan waivers, the proposed trade agreement, the release of Bandi Singhs, Punjab’s representation in the Bhakra Beas Management Board and the state’s riparian rights over river waters.

Separately, The Indian Express reported that thousands of farmers affiliated with the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Rajewal) organised a large bike and car rally from Mohali to Chandigarh, with more than 500 motorcycles, cars and jeeps participating in the procession. The demonstration witnessed participation from all 23 districts of Punjab, prompting extensive traffic diversions and heightened security arrangements across Chandigarh and adjoining areas.

Addressing the gathering, BKU (Rajewal) president Balbir Singh Rajewal described the proposed India–US Free Trade Agreement as the farmers’ foremost concern, arguing that Indian agriculture would struggle to compete with heavily subsidised agricultural producers in developed economies if the agreement were finalised. He warned that sectors such as agriculture, dairy, poultry and allied rural industries could suffer severe economic consequences.

The rally also highlighted broader concerns affecting Punjab’s agrarian economy. BKU leaders drew attention to deteriorating groundwater quality and increasing contamination by heavy metals, citing health concerns and referring to data indicating the growing burden of cancer in the state. They further accused political parties of remaining preoccupied with electoral politics while neglecting structural challenges confronting farmers, including land acquisition policies, resource management and the proposed trade agreement.

Following the rally, representatives submitted separate memorandums to the Prime Minister, through the Punjab Governor, and to the Punjab Chief Minister, outlining both national and state-specific demands and seeking immediate government intervention.

The protests continued to expand over the following days. As reported by Deccan Chronicle, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) organised demonstrations at more than forty toll plazas across Punjab, allowing vehicles to pass without collecting toll charges as a symbolic act of protest against both the Punjab government’s land pooling policy and the proposed India–US trade agreement.

Farmer leaders participating in the toll plaza demonstrations alleged that the amended land pooling policy sought to transfer fertile agricultural land to corporate interests while simultaneously expressing concern that the proposed trade agreement would adversely affect agriculture, dairy and poultry sectors. They demanded that these sectors be excluded entirely from any future trade pact and warned that the agitation would intensify if both the Centre and the Punjab government failed to address their concerns. Taken together, the protests represent one of the most recent coordinated farmer mobilisations, combining opposition to the proposed India–US trade agreement with broader demands concerning MSP, agricultural policy, land acquisition, indebtedness and rural governance.

Related:

Indian Agriculture: Between the 2026 Union budget & US-India trade deal, a huge setback for Indian farmers

“₹4 a Kilo for a Crop That Costs ₹20 to Grow”: Nashik’s onion farmers erupt in protest over deepening price crisis

February 12: Workers and Farmers Forge a Historic Axis of Resistance Across India

Indian Agriculture: Between the 2026 Union budget & US-India trade deal, a huge setback for Indian farmers

The post India–US trade deal faces mounting resistance as farmers intensify protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.