Teachers working as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have been engaged in the exercise for more than a month. They were earlier expected to return to schools on August 8, but their deployment has now been extended until August 17. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on August 24.

The extended schedule means teachers appointed as BLOs, as well as those assisting them, will continue with house visits, voter verification, form-related work and other activities connected with the revision.

Unit tests and classroom teaching affected

Schools are preparing for unit tests scheduled for August while also working with new textbooks introduced for Standards III, IV and VI under the National Education Policy. Teachers and school heads said the continued absence of staff has made it difficult for schools to maintain regular teaching and complete the syllabus.

The periodic assessment test, which is mandatory for students and is intended to assess their learning and academic progress, is normally conducted in August. Educationists have said that continued teacher deployment could push the assessment towards the end of September or October.

The extension has also affected unit tests planned for the second week of August. In several government and civic schools, teachers have either been fully relieved from school duties or are spending a substantial part of their working hours on SIR-related work.

In some schools, more than 70% of the teaching staff has reportedly been deployed for SIR duties, leaving fewer teachers to handle regular classes and examinations. Several schools have also been functioning for only half a day because of the shortage of teaching staff.

Teacher Madhav Suryawanshi said the continued deployment was affecting classroom work. He said, “BLO and SIR duties are complicated and continuous processes that require teachers to stay away from classrooms for several weeks”, as reported by the Times of India.

He also pointed out that the new textbooks introduced this year for Standards III, IV and VI under the NEP required additional classroom attention. According to him, schools were already facing difficulties in completing the syllabus and preparing for the first unit tests.

Schools managing with reduced staff

The impact is not limited to teachers formally appointed as BLOs. School heads said other teaching and non-teaching employees have also been assigned to assist in the SIR exercise.

According to the Times of India, Headmaster Tanaji Mane said his school had 17 teachers, one clerk and four Class IV employees. Initially, three teachers had been appointed as BLOs, but from July, the teaching and non-teaching staff were also assigned as assistants for the SIR exercise and directed to be relieved from their regular school duties.

According to Mane, the school had to function with reduced staff before all employees were eventually relieved. He was later also assigned election duty.

He said schools were simultaneously receiving circulars relating to literacy surveys, out-of-school children, student records and departmental competitions, making it difficult to run the school with normal staffing.

Education Department accounts for large share of BLO appointments

Tanaji Kamble, president of the Progressive Teachers Association, cited figures from the Ghatkopar East Assembly constituency to highlight the extent of teacher deployment. According to Kamble, 283 employees were appointed for BLO duties in the constituency. Of these, 184, or around 65%, were from the Education Department, including 157 teachers. Kamble said the figures from one constituency reflected the wider situation in Mumbai. He also said the government had stated that around 40% of teachers had been assigned SIR duties, while the situation on the ground was different, as per a report in the Hindustan Times.

The deployment has also led to pressure on teachers who do not report for election-related work. Police stations have issued notices to some teachers who failed to report for duty.

The issue has led to concerns among teachers, headmasters and school managements. Some school administrators have also approached the court over the matter, although no hearing has taken place so far.

Teachers say prolonged duty is affecting learning

Faruk Kazi, another teacher involved in the SIR exercise, said teachers had already been under pressure because of the prolonged nature of the work. As reported by the Times of India, Kazi said, “We have been under immense pressure for the past month. The form-filling process was completed only recently, but now verification and subsequent stages will continue.”

He said the revised schedule could extend the work into October and added that the Education Department had not done enough to address the concerns arising from prolonged non-academic duties. Jalinder Sarode, working president of Shikshak Sena (Maharashtra), also said the extension was coming at a time when examinations were already being conducted, as reported

As reported, Sarode said, “Examinations are going on and the frequent absence of teachers is disturbing the teaching process.”

He suggested that the government consider using trained personnel from other departments or outsourcing election-related work instead of continuing to deploy teachers from schools.

Concern over prolonged absence from classrooms

Suhas Gurav, an educator, said the issue was not limited to the additional workload being placed on teachers. He said attention also needed to be given to the effect of prolonged BLO and SIR duties on classroom teaching. As reported, Gurav said, “The real question is whether parents and society recognise that prolonged BLO and SIR responsibilities prevent teachers from devoting sufficient time to their primary responsibility of teaching.”

The SIR extension means teachers and other school employees assigned to the exercise will continue their election-related responsibilities until August 17, while the draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on August 24. Schools will accordingly continue to manage regular teaching and academic activities alongside the extended election-related deployment.

Related:

The Deadly Deadline: “I Can’t Do This Anymore”—India’s electoral revision turns into a graveyard for BLOs/teachers

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

The post Maharashtra SIR extension keeps teachers away from classrooms as unit tests face delays appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The reasons are not far to seek.

Over a decade ago, in 2015-2016, barely a year or two into the first term of this regime that has since been viewed nationally and internationally as autocratic and proto-fascist, it was the Ambedkar-Periyar circles in both Hyderabad Central University and Chennai that were the first targets of power and ideological assault. Ministers from the union government weighed in, first to withhold meritoriously earned scholarships/fellowships of Dalit (read Ambedkarite) and left oriented students like Rohith Vemula and others, thereafter to humiliate them by limiting access to libraries and even hostel accommodation. Muslim student scholars like Umar Khalid and Najeeb Ahmed were particular targets. Najeeb “disappeared” from his JNU room on October 15, 2016, after an alleged scuffle involving the RSS-linked Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) the day before. He had been injured in that encounter and doctors, according to a witness, had refused timely treatment. Shockingly, the case assiduously pursued by his mother was “closed” by the Rouse Avenue court in 2025.  Two films, Ammi (2019) and Where is Najeeb? (2022) have preserved a contemporary tragedy this regime would rather have us forget.

Rohith Vemula, talented and bright, part of a vibrant student community that was in the cross hairs of the administration for daring to screen Muzaffarnagar Baqi Hai at HCU was driven to suicide, an act the movement has called “institutional murder” on Sunday January 17, 2026. That very night JNU students protested Rohith’s death and the ripples of the movement surged across India. Mumbai that only sometimes steps out collectively against repression saw tens of thousands students and activists march in Mumbai from Byculla to CSMT (CST) to demand justice for Rohith.

Brute power and authority coupled with the supine behaviour of Vice-Chancellors like Appa Rao Podille (HCU) and M Jagadesh Kumar (JNU) actively enabled violent police entry and involvement in both campuses, behaviour that physically brutalised students and also criminalised dissent. [1] Cases were filed, Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar were jailed for a month and students (35 from the FTII) had to spend precious years battling the vindictiveness the powerful. Payal Kapadia’s A Night of Knowing Nothing (2021) is a film that, in a multi-layered narrative depicts what young Indians have been put through.

2016 then is as significant as 2026 may yet prove to be.

Why then is our public memory so short and our response only episodic? Institutional culpability or even amnesia by our constitutional bodies including courts and a wilful subservience by legacy and traditional commercial media has enabled the irresponsible vilification of student leaders and protesters.

Clearly, the specific targets were young, autonomous students, free in thought and behaviour. Organisations and individuals from Left and Dalit lineages and communities were specific, targets the case(s) made against them more vindictive and pernicious.

Umar was labelled “anti-national” (“desh drohi”) by irresponsible (and unaccountable) “media houses”. Rohith’s unquestionable “merit” was questioned and his caste status “doubted”, his mother hounded as she struggled for justice for her son. Fatima Nafees, Najeeb’s mother proud that her son made it to a central university, regrets that he opted for staying in its hostel! This level of violence and institutional discrimination faced by Dalit and Muslim students has not stemmed before 2016 or since. The deaths of Arman Iqbal Khatri (April 2023) and Darshan Solanki (February 2023) in Mumbai’s Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and Payal Tadvi (May 2019) studying to become a doctor at BYL Nair Hospital were all victims of targeted violence. Corrective constitutional institutions like courts have been tardy in offering remedies

Today in 2026, while the “westernised youth” or “desh drohi” (anti-national) are labels still sought to be applied to Gen Z as well, for erudite and clear left-leaning scholars like Umar and Rohith it was relentlessly pinned.

The sustained protests in HCU and JNU —among two dozen other institutions of higher learning –a decade ago were the first effective challenges to a regime determined to control behaviour, thought and ideas. In the months and years that followed this protest spawned multiple campuses across India: Film & Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune, Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi Mumbai University, Kashmir, Assam, Puducherry, all saw spirited and sustained protests. Patna University-Bihar, Jadavpur University-West Bengal, National Law School-Bangalore and the Allahabad Central University-Uttar Pradesh saw similar struggles against repression. Nine months after Rohith Vemula’s “institutional murder” on Sunday, January 17, 2026, eight law students from the Babasaheb Ambedkar University Lucknow protested after two of them were target of vindictive administrative action: two of them toppers, who ranked first and second in the PHD entrance examination had been suspended and thereafter expelled without due process because they protested the caste-ist behaviour of both the government and their professors who they claimed were being protected by the administration and the Ministry for Human Resources Development (MHRD).In an article on SabrangIndia, Prathama Banerjee (in 2016) reported that in Gwalior, a meeting organized by the Ambedkar Manch involving an Ambedkarite professor Vivek Kumar from JNU was attacked by ABVP members, who went on to not only fire guns at the gathering but even burn the Indian Constitution, perhaps to avenge Ambedkar’s burning of the Manusmriti half a century ago!

From the ideological slant on syllabi, to the rights of women to dress as they please and eat non-vegetarian (!), to dubious appointments like Gajendra Chauhan as director (FTII), students and youth mobilised first and immediately against the threat to their very existence and autonomy. By end 2016, the Modi 1.0 regime’s assault on public education and taken the form of simply cancelling (read withdrawing) a staggering 20,000 scholarships to central universities; this was soon followed by withdrawal of all minority scholarships instituted by the previous UPA II government.

So while today’s 2026 Gen Z protests come as another breath of fresh air to a battle weary people, our students and youth, backed by some in the academia have been at the forefront of this democratic challenge for a decade.

What if?

What if the political opposition, despite its poor numerical strength had backed and amplified these voices and demands in Parliament? Since and repeatedly since 2016?

Would India have already witnessed a pushback from the seat of power?

In any truly democratic society, it is the university that is the storehouse of young and budding intellectual opinion and often the bedrock of voices of sharp, critical dissent. Since 2014, India has been going through a determined effort towards homogenisation and imposed majoritarianism—whether through the blind acceptance of commercialization or privatization of education, or the imposition of a culturally-homogenous worldview where the Indian state and nation is equated with “one language, one culture,” in effect denying a plurality of existence and citizenship. These trends are not just dangerous but pose a challenge to the very foundation of India as a constitutional republic. Centres of higher learning within India that have become the battleground for the preservation of Indian democracy and all it stands for.

Before 2014, over the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, through a slow and often painful process within these central universities that came into being through key enactments—the University of Hyderabad Act of 1974, the Jawaharlal Nehru Act of 1966 and the North-Eastern Hill University Act of 1973—baby steps toward affirmative action within teachers’ unions and associations first ensured real diversity among students: students from rural, marginalised and discriminated-against backgrounds made it into institutions of higher learning. That is how, our Umars, Najeebs, Rohiths are household names even in bold challenge or sacrifice. Before that it was the moneyed with access that enjoyed entry within.

Under this regime in its third term however, the dual assault of aggressive neoliberal policies that have ensured a cut in scholarships in institutions of learning, accompanied by an ideological assault of a proto-fascist authoritarian character, have rendered campuses in India the focal points of a resurgent democratic movement. Student leaders and associations that do not fall in line with the majoritarian vision face criminal cases, the worst being the law of Sedition (Section 124-A)..[2] Only a few days ago, a former student of previously prestigious Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) was denied bail for attending an event in support of academic, now deceased, G.N, Saibaba.

As the monsoon session of Parliament reaches its conclusion, and the union home minister, responsible in the chain of command for the use of pellet guns and nail-tacked lathis on students who protested at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 20, refuses to answer charges of accountability or incompetence, there is every chance that the regime may not back off either surveillance or vindictive action.

The Gen Z generation that is rightly euphoric of its success in shaking up the union government, may yet have to give tests of its resilience to persistent punishment by process. If solidarity shown by older Indians and large sections of independent media, not present a decade ago, holds, victory may still be ours. We need to be prepared though.

In this moment of reckoning, this is my humble tribute. To the inspiring decades plus relentless pushback by India’s young.

[1] Vice-Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in 2016 was M. Jagadesh Kumar, who assumed office on January 28, 2016, a month before the assaults and arrests of tudents. He succeeded Sudhir Kumar Sopory and later served until February 2022; Appa Rao Podile former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hyderabad was awarded the Millennium Plaques of Honour for his achievements in Life Sciences by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi in 2017!

[2] Teesta Setalvad’s KG Kannabiran Memorial Lecture delivered at Madurai. December 11, 2016

Related:

The post August 11, 2026: A decade plus of students challenging a regime that seeks to control thought & ideas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His life story is full of contradictions. He emerged from Delhi’s politically charged theatre culture and was associated with the Left, but later developed an intense hostility towards leftists. He has himself described his decision to play a part in the politically controversial Jahangir National University as being driven by resentment rather than conviction and subsequently apologised for it.[1]

There is a similar contradiction in the way he talks about relationships, women and responsibility. Mishra has publicly admitted to cheating on his wife and has spoken about being emotionally absent and irresponsible during the early years of his marriage. He has also spoken about making obscene calls to women while drunk and acknowledged behaviour that he himself considered deeply inappropriate.

The point isn’t that a person’s private mistakes automatically invalidate their political opinions. They don’t. People can change, grow and genuinely repent.

The problem begins when someone turns their own personal journey into a source of moral authority over society, while refusing to interrogate the power structures, prejudices and contradictions embedded in their worldview.

And yet, somewhere along the way, Piyush Mishra has become something of a sweetheart of the young, progressive podcast circuit. He is presented as the rebellious, uncompromising, revolutionary intellectual, the older, irreverent voice who supposedly says what others are afraid to say. In the process, his history of misogynistic behaviour and his increasingly right-leaning political positions often seem to disappear from the conversation. The rebel is celebrated; the contradictions are merely a side note. There is also something deeply uncomfortable about the cultural archetype he represents: the brilliant, troubled, self-confessional male artist whose excesses are romanticised as evidence of his genius, while women are expected to absorb the consequences of those excesses with patience, forgiveness and understanding.

Mishra’s artistic talent is real. His self-awareness about some of his failures may also be real. But self-confession isn’t the same thing as political introspection.

And then comes Jharkhand.

This contradiction becomes particularly visible when Piyush Mishra enters the Jharkhand student protest.

A student movement is, at its core, about young people demanding accountability, dignity, opportunity and a future that isn’t determined by the whims of those in power. It is about challenging structures, not surrendering to personalities.

So his presence in the Jharkhand protest raises an uncomfortable question: what exactly does he represent there? If the movement claims inter-sectionality, shouldn’t that lens apply to the men it celebrates too?

If the protest is about challenging patriarchy, hierarchy, privilege and the normalisation of power without accountability, then elevating a celebrity whose own public narrative is marked by admitted infidelity, misogynistic behaviour and ideological contradictions sits uneasily with the politics of the movement.

The issue isn’t whether Piyush Mishra is allowed to speak. Of course he is. The issue is what his presence symbolises.

There is an additional question worth asking here. Mishra did publicly support the Jantar Mantar student protest, condemning the violence and saying that the government should have opened a dialogue with the students earlier. But he was not physically present at Jantar Mantar, where the violence against students was severe enough to move an empathetic heart to action. In Jharkhand, by contrast, he travelled to Ranchi, joined the students in person and sang Aarambh Hai Prachand at the protest site. He has said that watching interviews with the students and seeing their pain moved him to join them.

So the question is I’d keep it as an open-ended question rather than implying an answer:

So the question is: what made his solidarity more visible in Jharkhand? Does the difference in the governments being confronted have anything to do with it?

And perhaps the sharper question is for the progressive men, at least those who celebrate his presence at the protest: can a movement that seeks to challenge hierarchy and privilege afford to simultaneously romanticise the very contradictions it claims to resist? And why are those same contradictions disqualifying when they belong to people they oppose, but fascinating, forgivable or even revolutionary when they belong to a man they admire?

Perhaps the real test of progressive politics is whether we are willing to apply the same scrutiny to ourselves and the people we admire as we do to those we oppose.

(The author, is a branding and design strategist with over 25 years of experience across leading advertising agencies. She has worked with the Congress Party for the past six years)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

[1] Piyush Mishra played the character of “Guru Ji” and sang the promotional track “Main Nahi Manta” for the controversial political drama film Jahangir National University (JNU), which was released on June 21, 2024. Following the film’s release, Mishra publicly offered an unconditional apology for taking on the role, admitting that signing the project without reading the complete script stemmed from his past opposition to communist ideologies

Related:

moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain

Law fraternity rallies behind student protesters, condemns Delhi police crackdown

Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India

The post Piyush Mishra, Jharkhand and the Blind Spot of Progressive Men appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Scheduled for August 2 at the institute’s Mumbai campus, the convocation was called off barely two days before the ceremony. Students received an email from the Registrar shortly after midnight on July 31 stating that the event had been postponed due to “unforeseen circumstances.” No explanation accompanied the announcement.

According to The Indian Express, the decision was formally communicated to students through a late-night email from the Registrar, while the institute later issued a public statement saying only that the ceremony could not be conducted in a “conducive environment.” The administration has since maintained that the convocation will be rescheduled at the earliest.

The last-minute decision came after hundreds of graduating students and their families had already booked flights, train tickets, accommodation and made travel arrangements from across the country and abroad. For many, the postponement represented not merely an inconvenience but a significant financial burden and the loss of a once-in-a-lifetime academic milestone. 

Security concerns reportedly linked to CJI’s visit

Although TISS never officially announced the identity of its chief guest, The Indian Express reported that Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was scheduled to preside over the ceremony. The newspaper, citing institute officials and students, reported that discussions had been ongoing within the administration regarding security arrangements because of concerns that demonstrations linked to the continuing Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) movement could occur during the convocation.

One institute official, quoted by The Indian Express, stated that while the CJI’s visit had never been formally publicised, it was “common knowledge” on campus and there were concerns about possible protests targeting the chief guest.

Similarly, The Quint, citing graduating students and student representatives, reported that the administration had deliberately refrained from officially announcing the Chief Guest because it anticipated protests. One graduating student anonymously told the publication that “everyone knew” the CJI was expected to attend even though no formal announcement had been made.

Students also told The Indian Express that police personnel had visited the campus in the days preceding the ceremony as part of security preparations. The Quint further reported that a security meeting involving senior police officers was held on July 30, a day before the postponement was announced.

Administration offers little explanation

Following widespread criticism, TISS later issued a public statement asserting that the Institute had assessed that the ceremony could not be held “in a conducive environment.” 

The official notification can be viewed here.

The statement said proceeding with the convocation could have affected the wellbeing of students, faculty, staff, dignitaries, guests and campus life. However, it stopped short of explaining what precisely had rendered the environment unconducive. This carefully worded explanation leaves more questions than answers.

If the decision was based upon a concrete security assessment, the institute has not disclosed its nature. If there existed credible intelligence regarding potential violence, that too has not been shared. Instead, the administration has relied upon vague terminology while expecting students to accept the cancellation of one of the most significant events of their academic lives without meaningful justification.

The institute announced that it would examine requests for financial assistance arising from the postponement on a case-by-case basis and assured students that provisional degree certificates and other academic documents would be made available through the prescribed procedure. It also stated that the convocation would be rescheduled. 

While these measures may mitigate some practical consequences, they cannot compensate for the disruption caused by a decision communicated only days before the ceremony.

Allegations of intimidation on campus

The postponement also unfolded against a backdrop of increasing political tension on campus. According to The Indian Express, students said discussions had been taking place for several days regarding possible demonstrations during the convocation because the CJP movement continued to resonate with many students.

Meanwhile, The Quint reported allegations that WhatsApp groups associated with right-wing organisations circulated messages warning students that anyone attempting to protest during the convocation could face FIRs, arrest and disciplinary consequences. Screenshots of such messages were published by the publication.

One graduating student told The Quint that the atmosphere on campus had become increasingly hostile in the days leading up to the convocation, with students allegedly being warned that any form of protest could damage their careers and placement prospects.

Members of the Progressive Students’ Forum (PSF), quoted by The Quint, further claimed that when students questioned the Dean of Student Affairs regarding the postponement, they were informed that it was due to “security reasons.”

Student organisations demand accountability

The Progressive Students’ Forum criticised the decision, arguing that it reflected a broader pattern of administrative failures affecting graduating students. In a statement, the organisation noted that delays in declaration of final results and issuance of degree certificates had already adversely impacted students applying for employment and higher education opportunities. The postponement of the convocation, it argued, compounded these existing difficulties while damaging the institution’s credibility. Student representatives also questioned why degree distribution itself could not proceed even if the formal convocation ceremony was postponed.

As reported by The Quint, elected representatives met the Registrar seeking clarification after the announcement. Students present at the meeting alleged that the Registrar repeatedly referred only to “unforeseen circumstances” while declining to provide any substantive explanation.

The publication also reported that the administration later declared August 3 a non-instructional day without addressing students’ demands for greater transparency regarding the postponement. For many students, this reinforced concerns that the administration’s priority had shifted from engaging with students to preventing gatherings on campus.

Universities cannot function on speculation

Universities have historically served as spaces where disagreement, political engagement and democratic participation coexist alongside academic life. The possibility that some students may express dissent during a public function cannot, by itself, justify cancelling that function altogether.

Peaceful protest is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, subject only to reasonable restrictions. Administrative inconvenience or apprehension of embarrassment cannot become substitutes for concrete threats to public order. Where genuine security concerns exist, universities possess numerous less restrictive alternatives: enhanced security arrangements, controlled access, designated protest zones and coordination with law enforcement. Resorting immediately to cancellation represents the most restrictive response available and inevitably burdens the very students whose achievements the institution is meant to celebrate.

Equally concerning is the opacity surrounding the decision-making process. When an institution invokes vague “unforeseen circumstances” and point towards anticipated protests surrounding a constitutional functionary, the absence of transparency inevitably fuels speculation.

Students pay the highest price

Lost amid discussions about security and protocol are the students themselves. Convocation is more than a ceremonial event. For many first-generation learners and families from distant parts of the country, it represents years of sacrifice, financial struggle and academic perseverance. By postponing the ceremony at the eleventh hour without a clear explanation, the administration transferred the consequences of its decision almost entirely onto graduating students.

Whether the postponement ultimately stemmed from genuine security assessments or merely apprehensions about possible dissent, the episode reflects an increasingly familiar pattern within Indian universities. Across campuses, administrative responses to anticipated protests have increasingly prioritised pre-emptive restrictions over engagement. Events are curtailed, permissions withdrawn and public functions altered not because disorder has occurred, but because authorities fear that dissent might emerge. Such decisions risk transforming universities from spaces of intellectual exchange into institutions governed by precautionary control. Until the institute provides a fuller account of why the ceremony could not proceed, questions surrounding transparency, institutional accountability and the balance between security and democratic freedoms are likely to remain unanswered. The institution’s silence has not merely postponed a convocation—it has deepened anxieties about whether India’s universities are increasingly willing to curtail normal academic life in response to the mere possibility of protest, rather than uphold both security and the democratic values they are meant to foster.

Related:

The Throttling of Free Discussion in Academia: Strong-arm Tactics by ABVP and Cave in by Azim Premji University

Galgotias University’s AI Expo Debacle: What it says about Contemporary Indian Education & Public Culture

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

Partitioned minds, a Saffron Fatwa & Denial of Fair Opportunity: Mata Vaishno Devi University, Jammu

Historic Victory at Panjab University, but Federalism Remains at Stake

The Culture of Impunity at SAU, the University That Expelled Me

The post TISS, Mumbai: When convocation gives way to caution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan amid the political fallout surrounding examination controversies and sustained student anger over examination-related concerns has brought back into focus the strength of democracy and youth: some of the most consequential political corrections do not happen inside Parliament but outside it—on streets, at protest sites, in university campuses and in public spaces where ordinary citizens refuse to let their concerns be ignored. The “Cockroach Janta Party” emerged as a satirical youth-led protest movement after a remark by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant; and young protesters transformed it into a platform of resistance, starting with humour, memes and digital mobilisation, and then on-site protest and fast to highlight broader anxieties over unemployment, examinations and institutional accountability.

For the students who stood at the forefront of protest, the journey was marked not merely by slogans and demonstrations, but by immense personal hardship. They faced police crackdowns, lathi charges (even pellet injuries and sexual abuse!), physical injuries, detention and intimidation. Excessive force, restrictions on movement, internet shutdowns, closure of businesses and disruption of daily life across protest sites reflected the heavy cost imposed on those exercising their democratic rights. Young people, including women protesters, endured harassment, abuse and humiliation while insisting that their concerns be heard. Behind every protest was a human story of anxiety, sacrifice and resilience: the latest is a generation that felt compelled to leave classrooms and homes to defend the fairness and credibility of the very systems upon which their aspirations and future depend.

The departure of a senior minister from one of the most sensitive portfolios of governance underscores the growing power of public pressure as a force of democratic accountability in contemporary India. For millions of students who spent weeks demanding transparency, fairness and institutional responsibility, the moment carries the significance of a democratic victory—the recognition that sustained civic resistance can compel even powerful governments to confront failures they might otherwise seek to manage politically. The intensity of the public debate was reflected in the usually restrained PM Modi’s late-night Instagram video defending the government’s handling of the controversy, while Union ministers simultaneously engaged with activist Sonam Wangchuk, leading to the conclusion of his hunger strike. Together, these developments demonstrated that sustained public mobilisation had pushed the government into direct engagement, reinforcing a fundamental democratic principle: when citizens organise persistently, power is compelled to respond.

But the significance extends beyond one minister or one controversy. It reflects the rise of a new generation of Indians unwilling to accept institutional failure as inevitable. For these young citizens, the struggle was never merely about examinations; it was about trust, merit and the credibility of systems that shape their futures. Their movement represented a larger democratic demand—that institutions created to serve citizens must remain accountable to those whose lives and aspirations they influence. This politically conscious youth generation participates beyond traditional party structures. They organise through campuses, digital networks, creative campaigns and public conversations, using technology not merely to communicate but to mobilise, document and challenge authority. Their politics is rooted in lived realities—unemployment, questions of fairness, institutional credibility and the anxieties of a generation competing for limited opportunities. For millions, a competitive examination is not merely a test; it is often the dividing line between economic security and prolonged uncertainty

The significance of the student movement lies in how it transformed individual anxiety into collective democratic action. Students who could have remained isolated by personal uncertainty recognised a shared institutional failure and converted it into a national conversation. Their struggle demonstrated that youth participation in democracy does not begin and end with voting every few years; it also means questioning systems, demanding transparency and insisting that institutions remain answerable to the people they serve.

This is the same democratic force that was witnessed during the farmers’ movement, which forced the repeal of the three farm laws in 2021. The issues were different, but the underlying principle was remarkably similar: citizens confronting a powerful State, facing initial dismissal, enduring prolonged resistance and ultimately creating enough moral and political pressure for the government to reconsider its position.

When the farm laws were introduced in 2020, the Union government presented them as transformative reforms that would modernise agriculture, expand market opportunities and attract investment. Farmers, however, feared that the reforms would weaken the minimum support price system and gradually erode the mandi structure that protected millions of cultivators. Instead of resolving these concerns through sustained dialogue, the disagreement escalated into confrontation. Farmers moving towards Delhi encountered barricades, trenches, barbed wire, concrete barriers, restrictions and heavy security deployment—creating the extraordinary image of the State responding to its own citizens as a security challenge.

The movement was also subjected to political de-legitimisation, with sections of the ruling establishment and its supporters portraying protesters as politically motivated and, at times, associating them with anti-national or separatist forces. Yet the farmers remained at Delhi’s borders for more than a year through harsh weather, criticism and immense political pressure. Their persistence eventually forced the government to withdraw the laws.

The significance of that moment extended far beyond agricultural policy, and it demonstrated that electoral dominance cannot substitute for democratic persuasion. A government may possess a strong parliamentary majority, but legitimacy requires more than numbers; it requires public trust, dialogue and the willingness to listen.

The student movement carries the same message. Institutions cannot demand public confidence while avoiding public accountability. When young citizens are forced to leave classrooms and enter streets to demand fairness, protest is not a disruption of democracy—it is one of democracy’s most important corrective mechanisms.

India’s students have historically been central to democratic transformation, from the freedom movement to the anti-Emergency struggles. The present generation belongs to that longer tradition of young citizens questioning authority and reshaping public debate.

But unlike earlier political movements built primarily around traditional organisations and ideological structures, today’s youth movements operate through networks, creative communication and collective storytelling. This generation does not merely react to political decisions; it documents, debates and challenges them. Its politics is shaped by immediate questions of dignity, opportunity, merit and institutional credibility. A hashtag can become a movement, a meme a political message, and a single statement a national conversation. Democracies survive not merely because institutions exist, but because citizens believe those institutions are fair. Once that confidence weakens, protest becomes a language through which society demands repair. No government moves survive without democratic consent.

This new generation is not rejecting democracy but demanding a deeper system with transparent and responsive institutions. They are demanding that systems determining their futures deserve their trust, and they have new methods to mobilise and react.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests, particularly the women-led mobilisation at Shaheen Bagh, transformed a public space into a forum of constitutional dialogue. By carrying copies of the Constitution and the Preamble, ordinary citizens asserted a fundamental democratic principle: questioning government policy is not an act of disloyalty. In a constitutional democracy, disagreement with those in power is itself a legitimate form of citizenship.

The wrestlers’ protest in 2023 raised another troubling question about institutional accountability. Athletes who had brought international recognition to India were compelled to mobilise publicly while seeking action over serious allegations. Their struggle revealed an uncomfortable reality: when institutions fail to respond adequately, even those with public recognition may feel compelled to seek justice through collective pressure.

These movements differ in their immediate demands, but they share a common democratic foundation. Citizens do not take to the streets because they have abandoned faith in the Republic. They do so because they believe the Republic can still be made to listen.

The deeper concern for Indian democracy is not that citizens are expressing their voice. It is that governments increasingly risk interpreting criticism as hostility, dissent as conspiracy and critics as adversaries, anti-national elements or even threats to national security. Such an approach misunderstands the essence of constitutional democracy. Peaceful protest is not an attack on the State; it is one of the ways through which the State is reminded of its obligations.

The government has a legitimate responsibility to maintain public order and act against violence. But there is a fundamental difference between enforcing law and delegitimising peaceful opposition. Force, political labelling and attempts to discredit protesters may delay resolution, but they cannot eliminate legitimate grievances or rebuild public trust.

Democratic movements function as warning systems. They reveal failures that governments, protected by electoral victories and administrative power, may overlook. A confident democracy does not fear criticism; it uses criticism to correct itself. Revising a policy after hearing citizens is not weakness, but it shows that democracy remains capable of engagement.

India’s recent protest movements reaffirm a constitutional truth often forgotten by those in power: electoral mandates provide the authority to govern, but they do not provide immunity from scrutiny. From the repeal of the farm laws to the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, these episodes demonstrate that democratic resistance remains one of the strongest safeguards against unchecked power.

The greatest democratic victories are not always the defeat of governments or political opponents. They are moments when citizens compel power to listen, reflect and correct itself. From farmers’ fields to university campuses, Indians continue to defend a foundational constitutional principle: sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people.

Democratic protest does not weaken governments; it reminds them of their responsibility. It is through such moments of public accountability that power remembers whom it exists to serve.

(The author is an Indian author (his first book being The Essential,2023), policy analyst, and columnist. His research and commentary regularly appear in scholarly and popular publications. Follow @ens_socialis)

Related:

The Battle of Belonging: Why India’s Passport Controversy Matters

Hegemony: Kerala’s Bharatapuzha as a political stage

The post The Republic Speaks Back: How Student Power Reminded Authority of Its Limits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Detailed report on actions taken by Maharashtra police against student protesters may be read here, here and here.

According to The Indian Express, the Chief Minister’s directions have also been communicated to the Director General of Police, with officials indicating that, broadly, there would be no detentions, no police visits to the homes of those named in the FIRs and no coercive measures while the government works through the legal process for withdrawing the cases.

The protests, held largely on July 23 and 24 across Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur, were organised in solidarity with the brute police action against student protesters and youth led-Cockroach Janata Party’s (CJP) agitation at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar over alleged irregularities in the NEET examination and demands for the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. According to PTI, most of the cases registered in Maharashtra relate to allegations of unlawful assembly and violations of prohibitory orders.

By the time the withdrawal process was announced, Mumbai Police had registered around 20 FIRs across police stations including Worli, Dadar, Sion, Mahim and Shivaji Park, with more than 1,000 students, youth and protesters booked under bailable offences such as unlawful assembly and violations of prohibitory orders under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Hundreds of those booked later received notices, many delivered through WhatsApp, directing them to appear before investigating officers.

According to Hindustan Times, Fadnavis directed the Home Department to begin the process of withdrawing cases against participants in the CJP protests, fulfilling one of the key assurances given after the party suspended its nationwide agitation. However, government officials stressed that the announcement does not automatically terminate the FIRs.

“Once an FIR is registered, the government cannot suo motu withdraw the case. It can only initiate the process for withdrawal, which has to be completed in accordance with the legal procedure and requires scrutiny as well as court approval,” a senior official told Hindustan Times.

Officials told The Indian Express that while such cases are ordinarily withdrawn after a chargesheet has been filed and the prosecution seeks permission from the court, the government is also examining whether filing closure reports may be legally feasible in some cases. They emphasised that the Chief Minister’s announcement by itself does not bring the investigations to an end.

The government’s decision follows sustained pressure from student organisations, opposition parties and the CJP, which had repeatedly warned that it would resume nationwide protests if governments failed to honour assurances to withdraw all FIRs against peaceful demonstrators. Earlier, the Bihar and Assam governments had also announced the withdrawal of cases registered against participants in the CJP-led protests.

Despite the government’s announcement, confusion has continued on the ground. According to The Free Press Journal, Mumbai Police have maintained that investigation procedures cannot be halted until they receive formal legal instructions. Police officials said they are still required to record statements of accused persons and witnesses, conduct panchnamas and complete other statutory procedures because the FIRs remain legally in force.

The decision to withdraw the cases followed representations by a joint delegation of the All India Students’ Federation (AISF), which met the Director General of Police and the Mumbai Police Commissioner seeking an end to police action against peaceful protesters. While welcoming the government’s decision, AISF has maintained that the struggle will continue until every FIR, notice and legal proceeding against student protesters is withdrawn.

AISF Mumbai President Aamir Kazi told The Free Press Journal that students continued to receive calls and notices from police even after the government’s announcement, creating fear and uncertainty. He said the Director General of Police advised the organisation to submit a representation to the Mumbai Police Commissioner requesting that no further notices be issued and that students not be summoned to police stations while the withdrawal process is underway.

Student organisations have also alleged that police action continued despite the government’s announcement. According to The Free Press Journal, members of the Harsha Disha student organisation said that beginning around 9:30 a.m. on July 28, several students who had participated in the protests received FIR notices through WhatsApp. In a statement, the organisation accused the Mumbai Police and the BJP-led government of attempting to intimidate students and discourage future protests, and urged the CJP to continue its agitation until every FIR is withdrawn and police officials allegedly responsible for violence against protesters are held accountable.

Officials further indicated that the current government resolution authorising withdrawal of such cases remains valid until July 31. As several investigations are still underway and many chargesheets may not be filed before then, an extension of the resolution is likely to be considered. Police officials said the sooner chargesheets are completed, the sooner the formal withdrawal process can begin.

The issue has also played out differently in other states. The West Bengal government stated that it would not take coercive action against students but clarified that this protection would not extend to persons with criminal antecedents, citing the Supreme Court’s order. The state said that one police case had been registered, in which 16 people were arrested before subsequently securing bail. Six additional cases remain pending on complaints filed by journalists alleging they were assaulted during the protests.

In Kerala, the Congress-led government has directed the Home Department to examine the demand for withdrawal of cases after the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Chief Minister seeking similar relief for protesters.

Detailed report may be read here.

Meanwhile, the CJP has expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s observation permitting investigations in existing FIRs to continue. The organisation argued that the direction was inconsistent with the assurances allegedly given by governments that cases against peaceful protesters would be withdrawn. CJP leader Saurav Das said the executive retained the power to withdraw the FIRs, as demonstrated by Bihar and Assam, and called for complete transparency in the process.

The Supreme Court cannot be politicised for government’s gains. Its orders cannot be weaponised to achieve those gains. A solemn guarantee was given before the nation. Those ought to be honoured. All FIRs ought to be withdrawn. If criminals roamed, police must apply for…

— Saurav Das (@SauravDassss) July 28, 2026

URGENT STATEMENT

The interim order passed by the Supreme Court of India in the batch of PILs related to the CJP protest must ring alarm bells across the country. In particular, Direction No. 4, which permits governments to proceed with existing FIRs and carry out…

— Saurav Das (@SauravDassss) July 28, 2026

The Maharashtra government’s announcement comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s earlier direction that no coercive action be taken against student protesters across states and that any detained minors be released immediately. Even as the state has publicly committed to withdrawing the FIRs, the legal process remains ongoing, meaning students may continue to receive notices and be required to participate in investigation procedures until the statutory process is completed and the courts formally approve the withdrawal of the cases.

Related:

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

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 Maharashtra: After backlash, govt. moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Revolution has begun…But is it from the frying pan into the fire? The appointment of another hard-core RSS man, Prahlad Joshi, to succeed Pradhan is certainly no solution. Everyone knows that! In March 2022, in the height of the Russia-Ukraine war, when Indian students studying there had to be brought back. Joshi famously said, “Ninety per cent of Indians who study medicine abroad fail to clear qualifying exams in India.”  He hurt the sentiments of many then. When the rapists of Bilkis Bano and the ones who brutally murdered her kith and kin were prematurely released a few years ago, it was he who defended their premature release. The Supreme Court then annulled the remission period granted to these rapists and murderers. To think that this man now presides over the education and future of our youth is, for most, totally unacceptable.

The Revolution has begun…the youth protesting in Jantar Mantar and elsewhere were loud and clear. They would never allow xenophobia, exclusivism, sectarianism or any form of bigotry to permeate their ideals, their dreams, their hopes for a better future. They visibly and vocally demonstrated in no uncertain ways that they were first and foremost citizens of the country, students and youth. They were with one heart and one mind, transcending the confines of every religion. They belonged to every strata of society. No one could divide them and pit them against each other.  Not the fascist, fundamentalist agenda of the regime. They were determined not to fall prey to insidious designs. With the Constitution in hand, they chanted in unison, ” We are one, we shall overcome!” Hum Honge Kaaba!”

The Revolution has begun…Arundhati Roy is one of the most celebrated and renowned Indian personalities today. In a hard-hitting and incisive article in ‘The Wire’ (dtd. July 22, 2026) entitled ‘Cockroach Democracy: Unarmed and Dangerous’, she writes, “For the first time in years, it feels wonderful to be Indian. Just when hope seemed lost, they came. Young roaches riding in on the rain. The progeny of the unholy union between a judge and a joke…. The cockroaches took the capital city by storm. They came by train, by bus, by air, by metro, their numbers increasing by the hour. Hours before the first rays of sunlight lightened Delhi’s monsoon skies, they began to pour into Jantar Mantar in the tens of thousands. By sunrise it was clear that a generation of desperate and furious young people who have seen their future snuffed out before their eyes was going to reclaim what their parents and grandparents’ generations had conceded: our dignity as a people and as a country. Our rights as citizens of a democracy.

The Revolution has begun…thousands of students, youth and others have come out on the streets all over the country: in perhaps every big city and small town, in district headquarters and even in villages. This was not a paid mob mobilisation – as this current Government does so often!  It was a spontaneous uprising, giving rise to their angst, their sense of outrage at what is happening to them, to the whole educational system, to the fact that twenty-one students had committed suicide because of the NEET paper leakage. It reminded one of the ‘Arab Spring’, of what happened not too long ago in neighbouring Nepal and Sri Lanka, and they have come out in hordes everywhere in protest. Besides, in several countries across the world there have been protests in solidarity with what is happening in India. All major civil society organisations and movements have issued powerful statements of support to the students.

The Revolution has begun…in Ahmedabad, in Gujarat, the sight was unbelievable. Something never seen in recent years. Groups of students walking together, singing as though they were on a picnic. There were droves of them. Shouting slogans, of course: “Modi hatao! Desh Bachao!” People were rubbing their eyes and ears! This in Ahmedabad of all places! Well, it is happening! Some were detained! There were thousands of police and security (with guns and armoured vehicles) in the Gujarat University area. They could do nothing. The students/youth were not ‘in assembly’ – just walking. And can anyone stop people walking? They were walking for change! The political masters, of course, will never forget the ‘Nav Nirman’ agitation of 1974 and how a Government was overthrown!

The Revolution has begun…Indian academic and social analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta, in an article, ‘Cockroaches’ have shown us what it means to be courageous citizens — not subjects’ (Indian Express dtd July 27, 2026), does plain speaking, saying, “The farmers’ agitation had made the government withdraw legislation. But this is the first time that the government has acknowledged the need for taking responsibility and being held accountable…There are glorious moments when the youth of the nation demonstrate that they are indeed the genuine trustees of posterity, to borrow Benjamin Disraeli’s phrase. A generation that has been catastrophically failed by their elders, who bequeathed to them authoritarianism, communalism, a failing education system, an administrative state marked by impunity, and an atmosphere of suffocating fear, decided to take their future into their own hands. They made a regime and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, intoxicated with fantasies of total power, look out of touch, small and ridiculous. By itself, the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan will not bring change. But India’s young have shown that the regime is vulnerable. We can still pull back from the abyss.”

The Revolution has begun… Rhiya Ahir courageously demonstrated the power of one: the power of youth, the power of women!  On July 22, she went to the protest rally in Shivaji Park, Mumbai.  As she was walking towards the venue, she noticed a police van packed with youth who were detained by the police. The sight immediately disturbed her, and she says, “The van was stuffed from the front to the back. There was no space to stand.” She did not know anyone inside. She plucked up courage to stand in front of the van, not allowing it to proceed. What followed was a heated exchange with the police. They knew they were wrong, Rhiya asserts. They finally relented and released all the youth they had detained. The defining pictures and videos of Rhiya preventing the police van from moving went viral!

The Revolution has begun… godimedia has been singing the tunes of the ruling regime to no end. The mainstream media has been bought up, corrupted, co-opted, and threatened. For several days, they did not take cognisance of the Jantar Mantar protest. The prestigious UK newspaper ‘The Guardian’ (July 26, 2026) in a lead analysis piece, ‘India’s Cockroach Janta party protest victory signals trouble ahead for Modi’, puts it succinctly, “Modi had also lost another medium critical to the BJP’s domination over the national narrative – the mainstream TV news channels widely acknowledged to have been co-opted by the BJP government over the past 12 years and turned into mouthpieces for its right-wing Hindu nationalist ideology. Initially, the channels ignored the protests, and when they did cover them, it was to suggest the protesters were being bankrolled by sinister foreign forces and Pakistani terror groups. In response, the protesters turned on the channels, using social media to expose their “lies”. When the protests escalated, Modi remained conspicuously absent from the airwaves. Interestingly, since times are changing, godified media, like a chameleon, is also changing colours. Foreign media have editorials and articles on this!

The Revolution has begun…the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march to Parliament on 20 July was proof enough of this fact! The fact that hundreds of thousands, from all walks of life, began this historic march was a breakthrough in the recent annals of the country. There was panic among the ruling regime. They spared no efforts to stop the march. All police and paramilitary forces were called out. Thousands of the marchers were baton-charged, beaten, and pellet guns were used against them. Many had to be hospitalised.  This ensured a groundswell of protests all over the country. On July 27, the Supreme Court said, “The right to peaceful, lawful protest absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution. So long as it is peaceful agitation, merely because there is agitation, there can’t be lathi-charge. Police excesses must be inquired into.” The Bihar youth are still under attack by the ruling regime. They seem to have forgotten that in 1974, the JP Andolan began in Patna, Bihar!

The Revolution has begun… The Jantar Mantar protest was about reclaiming shrinking democratic space in the country. And wow, it succeeded tremendously – with a profound impact everywhere. The right to dissent is back on the big canvas. People are out on the streets. It is significant that whilst delivering the fourth Justice GP Singh memorial lecture at the National Law Institute University in Bhopal on July 25, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan referred to the right to dissent. He said, “It will not be an exaggeration to say that public space for expressing divergent opinion is shrinking in India. The right to express one’s views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms guaranteed to citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy…Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalised. Students protesting on campuses are arrested, and they do not get bail for 30 to 40 days. They are suspended, for which they have to go to court. It takes time. These issues raise serious questions.” The last thirty-five days are changing things! 

The Revolution has begun… against corruption. The youth are not going to take things lying down anymore.  Not only corruption in education, but which has permeated every strata of society. Beginning right at the top. There is a lack of accountability and transparency. Much has to be addressed, like demonetisation, electoral bonds, the PM Cares fund, and now the E20 (The E20 Janata Party is on the rise). More questions will be asked. Where did the RSS and BJP get the enormous amounts of money to put up palatial buildings everywhere? What about the crony capitalist friends who profiteer at the cost of the poor and by looting the country? What about electoral malpractices: the manipulation of the EVMs and the meticulous disenfranchisement, through SIR, of thousands of legitimate citizens everywhere.

The Revolution has begun …In a strongly worded statement on July 27, the Cockroach Janata Party said, “We are observing a complete breach of the agreement regarding no police action against the protestors. Hundreds of students have been arrested in Bihar and Bengal, and hundreds are being shrivelled/harassed in Delhi and other states. Multiple reports are emerging in Delhi around the detention of volunteers supporting protestors with logistics. We demand that all the FIRs against the protestors be immediately withdrawn, students be released, and no future FIRs be filed (in line with our agreement) by Delhi police / Central investigative agencies / Police in BJP-allied states, FAILING WHICH WE WILL BE FORCED TO SIT ON PROTEST AGAIN. We also demand that the written agreement around legal cases be shared with us by tomorrow, along with the aligned timelines with the Government of India.” Yes, the protests, are not a flash-in the- pan!

One has had enough of references to the past: from the French Revolution to the Quit India Movement! The Revolution has begun indeed…. And there is no looking back!

July 27 2026

 (The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist & writer)

The post The Revolution has begun….! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a sense, the developments may mark a significant de-escalation after one of the country’s largest youth-led protest movements in recent years. Little moves for pinning individual or collective accountability on RAF/Police/Paramilitary inflicted violence have been witnessed though. This leaves unresolved questions about accountability of the state during peaceful protest.

Bihar: first state to formally withdraw cases

The Bihar Home Department on Monday issued a notification announcing that no punitive, retaliatory or other adverse legal action would be taken against anyone who participated in protests before 6 p.m. on July 26.

The government said it would immediately begin the legal process of withdrawing all FIRs, criminal complaints and show-cause notices linked to the demonstrations. Everyone arrested or detained in connection with those cases would be released, while the government also assured that no future action would be taken against protesters covered by the order. Past experiences of activists and protests movements however reveal many a slip between the cup on the lip: at the height of agitations when public anger and attention is trained on the issue being agitated, the state appears to “concede to its overreach;” once public attention –notoriously fickle shifts—the demeanour of the state hardens. It then becomes a herculean task to ensure that these promises are kept.

Be that as it may, the “prompt” announcement of case withdrawals this time came after sustained pressure from the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), the All India Students’ Association (AISA) and several student organisations, which had accused governments of reneging on commitments made during negotiations that led to the suspension of nationwide protests.

Neha Bora: “The movement will not stop”

AISA national president and JNU PhD scholar Neha Bora confirmed that Bihar’s notification followed a meeting between student representatives and Bihar Director General of Police Vinay Kumar.

Posting on X, Bora wrote: “Order of release of arrested students and withdrawal of cases has been notified following our meeting with Bihar DGP.”

संघर्ष तब तक जब तक आखिरी छात्र अपने घर नहीं पहुँच जाता है!

Order of release of arrested students and withdrawal of cases has been notified following our meeting with Bihar DGP pic.twitter.com/xxLL5y75FO

— Neha (@neha_aisa) July 27, 2026

However, she made clear that the notification alone would not end the agitation. Calling dissent a constitutional right rather than a crime, she said AISA would continue monitoring implementation of the government’s assurances until every detained student had been released. Even after welcoming Bihar’s notification, Bora maintained that AISA’s planned statewide protest on July 30 would remain in place until the government fully implements its commitments. At a press conference in Patna, Bora declared:

“Jab tak har arrested student protestor riha nahi hota, movement rukne wala nahi. The right to dissent is a constitutional right, not a crime. No government can take that away.”

AISA All India President Neha Bora (@neha_aisa) made it clear at a press conference in Patna today:

Jab tak har arrested student protestor riha nahi hota, movement rukne wala nahi.

The right to dissent is a constitutional right, not a crime. No government can take that away. pic.twitter.com/8vN0HEyfRK

— AISA (@aisa_official_) July 27, 2026

Assam follows with similar assurance

Hours later, the Assam government issued a similar press note. The state acknowledged that five criminal cases had been registered and 13 people arrested during the protests but announced that it would begin withdrawing those cases “as per law” while expediting the release of everyone arrested. The government further stated that it would initiate no further legal proceedings against those involved in the protests and would treat the matter as closed once the process is completed.

The Assam government’s announcement has also raised hopes for Monjur Rahman, Ashraful Islam and Abdul Kashem, the three young men arrested after allegedly attempting to organise a solidarity protest. As reported by The Wire, their families have maintained that the protest never even took place. With Assam now promising to withdraw protest-related cases and release those arrested, it remains to be seen whether their cases will also be withdrawn.

Bengal remains the key test

West Bengal is now the principal state where protesters continue to await a similar announcement. According to ThePrint, senior police officials indicated that while the government is examining the possibility of withdrawing protest-related cases, FIRs lodged by private complainants—including journalists alleging assault during the demonstrations—would likely require separate legal examination.

Meanwhile, The Hindu reported that Kolkata Police arrested two more people on Monday in connection with the July 24 Esplanade violence, taking the total number of arrests to sixteen. Responding to the developments, the Cockroach Janta Party publicly appealed to Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari to honour the assurances allegedly given during negotiations with Union ministers J.P. Nadda and Jitendra Singh by releasing all arrested protesters and withdrawing every pending FIR.

CJP says Delhi calm, updates expected from three states

Providing the latest organisational update in a video statement, CJP spokesperson Ratna Singh said the party expects official updates regarding FIR withdrawals and the release of detainees from West Bengal, Delhi and Maharashtra shortly. She added that, according to information received by the organisation, no fresh FIRs have been registered and no new detentions have taken place in Delhi since the agreement. Ratna also said the organisation had raised concerns with authorities over allegations that members of one particular community were being selectively targeted and harassed for participating in the protests.

According to her, officials assured CJP that clear instructions would be communicated to all police officers to prevent any such discrimination. She further disclosed that she had received complaints from Goa regarding the alleged harassment of a protest organiser and had requested the concerned authorities to examine the matter. The update was shared through her official post on X, where she wrote:

Update on FIR withdrawals and the release of detained/arrested individuals: We expect updates from West Bengal, Delhi, and Maharashtra shortly, and we will share them as soon as we receive them. Yesterday, we were informed that there are currently no fresh FIRs being registered or detentions taking place in Delhi. I also raised concerns that members of one particular community were allegedly targeted and harassed for participating in the protest. We were assured that clear instructions would be communicated to all officers to ensure this does not happen. As of now, there are no fresh FIRs in Delhi. I was also contacted regarding a similar issue in Goa, where an organiser is allegedly facing harassment. I have requested the concerned authorities to look into the matter.

Update on FIR withdrawals and the release of detained/arrested individuals:

We expect updates from West Bengal, Delhi, and Maharashtra shortly, and we will share them as soon as we receive them.

Yesterday, we were informed that there are currently no fresh FIRs being registered…

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) July 28, 2026

Agreement must be honoured

The government notifications followed a public warning from the Cockroach Janta Party earlier on July 27. Addressing the media, CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka accused governments of violating the understanding reached after the Jantar Mantar protests by continuing arrests in Bihar and West Bengal while allegedly detaining volunteers in Delhi. He warned that unless FIRs were withdrawn immediately and governments stopped initiating fresh criminal proceedings, the organisation would be forced to resume nationwide protests.

Later that night, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das announced that government representatives, including Delhi Police officials, had met party leaders and shown them Bihar’s official notification confirming withdrawal of cases. Das said the organisation had also expressed concern over possible harassment of protesters across states and claimed that authorities assured them that appropriate instructions would be issued to prevent any retaliatory action.

Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, who has been advising the organisation, said he would continue providing legal assistance to protesters. Alongside pressing governments to withdraw criminal proceedings, CJP announced a nationwide legal support initiative. The organisation has launched a public fundraising campaign to support injured protesters and those facing criminal proceedings. It has also established legal aid cells across India, with Kapil Sibal pledging ₹1 crore towards legal assistance while urging lawyers across districts to volunteer.

Additionally, CJP announced the launch of the Sakshi Portal, where photographs and videos documenting alleged police excesses during the protests can be uploaded for legal documentation.

Allegations of excessive force continue

Despite governments beginning to withdraw cases, allegations against police remain widespread. Ratna Singh alleged that volunteer lawyers are already assisting detainees in Assam, West Bengal and Bihar. She claimed that eleven people had been arrested in Kolkata, ten of whom belonged to the Muslim community, and alleged that stringent legal provisions were being considered against them.

She further alleged police brutality in Patna, Siwan and Chhapra, claiming that protesters had been booked under serious charges including attempted murder while cases had been registered against nearly 5,000 unidentified persons.

Following visits to detainees in Beur Jail, Neha Bora also alleged that arrested students described being abused, threatened with fake encounters and questioned about their religion and caste while in police custody. She further claimed that some detainees were labelled “terrorists” and “Naxalites.” Jail officials, however, assured her that students would receive all necessary assistance during their detention.

A fragile truce

While governments appear to be stepping back from criminal prosecution under public pressure, the violence witnessed during the protests remains an important part of the story. According to Bihar Police, 694 people were detained during the demonstrations. Of these, 339 students, women and minors were released after verification, while 355 individuals accused of involvement in violent incidents were produced before courts. Police stated that 91 personnel, including the Superintendents of Police of Siwan and Sitamarhi, sustained injuries during clashes. Authorities also reported that 14 police vehicles were damaged and one government vehicle was set ablaze.

One of the most controversial moments of the protests occurred in Bihar’s Siwan district, where Constable Abhishek Kumar was captured on video firing an AK-47 rifle into the air while attempting to disperse demonstrators. Bihar Police suspended the constable and ordered a departmental inquiry, confirming that four rounds were fired but stating that no injuries resulted from the incident.

Police action also extended into the digital space. According to ThePrint, Delhi Police approached X and Meta seeking removal of social media posts considered abusive towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other political leaders, describing the exercise as part of routine monitoring.

In Madhya Pradesh, content creator Yashpal Soni was booked over an Instagram reel allegedly containing abusive remarks directed at former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and the BJP. Meanwhile, Kolkata Police registered a complaint after BJP leader Keya Ghosh alleged that actor Sreelekha Mitra displayed defamatory caricatures of the Prime Minister during a protest rally.

Detailed report may be read here.

For now, the immediate confrontation appears to be easing. Bihar and Assam stated that they will implement these commitments that student organisations say, formed the basis of the agreement reached with the Union government. Delhi, according to CJP, has not seen any fresh FIRs or detentions since the understanding was reached, while West Bengal and Maharashtra are expected to announce their positions shortly. Yet protest leaders insist the movement is far from over.

Both CJP and AISA say they will continue monitoring implementation of the government’s assurances until every arrested protester has been released, every pending FIR withdrawn and all allegations of harassment addressed.

The rollback of criminal proceedings may have reduced immediate tensions, but it does not resolve the deeper questions exposed by the protests: the limits of police force, accountability for violence committed during demonstrations, the treatment of detainees, and the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding the constitutional right to peaceful dissent.

Other detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.

Related:

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

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 Governments begin rolling back cases against protesters, but questions over violence, arrests and accountability remain appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That contradiction lies at the heart of what comes next. The resignation may have answered one political demand, but it does not answer what happened to the protesters who were arrested. It does not account for the FIRs filed against them. It does not explain why cases were registered despite the Centre’s assurance that there would be none. And it does not settle the allegations of excessive police force, including the reported use of pellet guns, or the injuries sustained during the crackdown. Nor does it address what happened after the crowds dispersed.

The protests of India’s youth, especially in Delhi, the capital and Bihar were especially brutal. The use of pellet guns, steel lathis and visuals and videos of brazen sexual assault by policing personnel against female protesters are now a household story and have generated outrage and demands for accountability and action.

Though the protests have ended, for now, police cases have not been withdrawn. Notices were issued. Families were drawn into the process. Protesters were detained and, in some cases, sent to judicial custody. Facial-recognition technology was deployed around protest sites. Muslim protesters and volunteers reported police action that, in some instances, allegedly extended to their families. Across different states, the response to dissent increasingly moved beyond the street and into the criminal justice system, the home and the private lives of those who had participated.

This is why the aftermath cannot be reduced to the resignation of a minister or the withdrawal of a protest. The more difficult questions remain. What happens to the FIRs filed against protesters after the Centre’s assurance that there would be none? Why are police reportedly waiting for government approval to withdraw cases that should, according to that assurance, never have been registered? Who will account for the arrests and detentions that have already taken place? Who will investigate allegations of police brutality and excessive force? And what happens to those who were injured, who were under surveillance or drawn into cases simply for being part of a movement that challenged the government? The political confrontation may have ended. The State’s actions during and after it still demand answers.

The Centre’s assurance and the FIRs that followed

Among the final demands put forward by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) before it called off the agitation was the withdrawal of all FIRs and cases registered against protesters during the movement. The demand was significant because it recognised that, beyond the immediate political questions of examination reforms and ministerial accountability, hundreds of students and young protesters had already been drawn into the criminal justice system. Following assurances from the Centre that protest-related cases would not continue and that FIRs against protesters would be withdrawn, the CJP announced the suspension of its agitation.

To date however, there is no confirmation that these assurances have resulted in real action.

Yet the events on the ground tell a more complicated story. Reports from across the country show that FIRs had already been registered, protesters had been arrested, and many had been remanded to judicial custody before the political settlement was reached. According to reporting cited by Maktoob Media, more than 400 protesters were arrested and sent to jail, while police released photographs and posters of identified protesters in several districts. The report noted that these arrests came despite the Union government’s assurance that no cases related to the protests would be registered in NDA-ruled states. In Patna, at least 87 people were reportedly remanded in an FIR connected to the Bihar Bandh, while Prabhat Khabar, as cited in the same compilation, reported that 190 people had been arrested and sent to jail. In Chhapra, four FIRs were reportedly registered and 56 people arrested, while 25 people were arrested in Siwan.

The Centre’s assurance and the events on the ground therefore sit uneasily alongside each other. If peaceful participation in the protests was never meant to attract criminal proceedings, why were FIRs registered against protesters at all? And if, as reported by The Times of India, the Delhi Police are now awaiting government approval to withdraw these cases, it raises another question: why should people who were peacefully exercising their constitutional rights have had to pass through the criminal justice system in the first place?

As per Indian Express, Mumbai Police registered 15 FIRs against nearly 1,500 people in connection with demonstrations supporting the agitation. Police data accessed by the newspaper showed that among 301 people named in seven FIRs, more than half were aged 25 or younger, with one in five between 18 and 20. Around one-third of those named were women. The offences included unlawful assembly and disobedience of lawful orders. The Indian Express also reported the case of a 20-year-old student who said he had been recording a protest from a sweet shop after attending his coaching class. He was taken to a police station and later struggled to determine whether an FIR had actually been registered against him. The uncertainty surrounding his legal status became a form of pressure in itself.

This does not diminish the importance of withdrawing the FIRs. On the contrary, their withdrawal is necessary where protesters have been booked solely for participating in peaceful demonstrations. But the withdrawal of cases cannot be the end of the conversation. It must also be accompanied by an examination of how and why peaceful protesters were criminalised despite the Centre’s assurance and despite the constitutional guarantee of the right to assemble and protest peacefully.

This distinction is important. Where individuals committed acts of violence, attacked police personnel or damaged public property, those allegations must be investigated on their own merits. But participation in a peaceful protest is not, by itself, a crime. The criminal law must distinguish between acts of violence and the exercise of democratic rights. That distinction is essential if the constitutional right to protest is to have any real meaning. This is the point at which the FIR becomes more than a legal instrument. It becomes a mechanism through which the State can impose a cost on dissent even without securing a conviction. The consequences begin before the court has spoken.

From tear gas and barricades to alleged pellet injuries in Delhi

The use of force in Delhi adds another dimension to the story. The march towards Parliament on July 20 became a defining moment in the State’s response to the movement, with police action involving barricading and crowd-control measures, including tear gas, followed by allegations that pellet guns were used.

The Hindu reported that at least four of approximately 80 protesters injured during the police action sustained pellet-gun injuries, according to a source at Lady Hardinge Medical College. Delhi Police denied using pellet guns and called the claims false and misleading, while allegations focused on the Rapid Action Force. The RAF, reported The Print, has accepted using excessive force.

The Hindu’s analysis notes that the Ministry of Home Affairs has maintained that pellet guns should be used only as a last resort after other crowd-control measures, including warnings, tear-smoke and PAVA shells, have failed to disperse a violent crowd. The July 20 incident therefore raises the question of whether the safeguards governing their use were followed. That question becomes particularly important when the protesters are students and when there is no established finding that the crowd posed a threat requiring such a weapon.

The debate over pellet guns is not new. The Hindu’s reporting recalls how the government explored alternatives following the injuries caused during the unrest in Kashmir, including PAVA shells, stun-lac rounds, acoustic devices and plastic bullets. Yet pellet guns remained part of the security forces’ arsenal. The weapon’s continued use has been criticised because of its capacity to cause permanent eye injuries and other serious harm.

The United Nations Human Rights Office’s 2020 guidance on less-lethal weapons went further, stating that metal pellets fired from shotguns should never be used because multi-projectile weapons are inherently inaccurate and generally cannot meet the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The Delhi episode therefore requires a transparent investigation into what happened, which forces were deployed, what weapons were used, who authorised their use and whether the response was proportionate to the threat. The same principle that applies to protesters must apply to the State: evidence must determine responsibility.

The State’s response did not stop at the barricades

The crackdown also moved into the realm of surveillance. The Daily Pioneer reported that Delhi Police deployed four facial-recognition units around the Jantar Mantar protest site. Police said the systems were intended to identify wanted criminals, absconders and history-sheeters rather than ordinary protesters, and that the cameras were connected to the Delhi Police database.

The police explanation is relevant, but it does not resolve the broader civil-liberties question. When facial-recognition systems are deployed around a political demonstration, citizens may reasonably wonder whether participation itself is being recorded and monitored. The difference between surveillance intended to identify wanted criminals and surveillance that chills ordinary political participation must be clearly maintained. Without adequate safeguards, a protest site can become a space where citizens exercise their democratic rights while simultaneously being subjected to technologies of identification.

The effect may be subtle, but it can be powerful. A young person who knows that their face may be scanned may think twice before attending a demonstration. A student who has already seen fellow protesters arrested may decide not to return. A citizen who fears being identified may choose silence over participation. The State does not need to prohibit protest outright to weaken the right to protest. It only needs to make participation feel dangerous.

According to The Times of India, Delhi Police have initiated action against social media posts that allegedly contained abusive or derogatory language directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the CJP-led agitation. Several social media platforms have reportedly received notices seeking the removal of such content, with most of the flagged videos, posts and comments already taken down. The report further states that police teams are continuing to monitor online content, issuing fresh notices as new posts emerge and directing platforms to remove them promptly.

The police have maintained that the action is limited to content containing abusive language and is aimed at enforcing the law. At the same time, the move illustrates how the State’s response to the protests has expanded beyond physical demonstrations into the digital spaces where political mobilisation, criticism and debate increasingly take place. While speech that falls foul of the law may legitimately invite legal scrutiny, sustained monitoring of online expression linked to a protest also raises broader questions about the extent to which digital speech surrounding political dissent is being policed in the aftermath of the agitation.

Viewed alongside the registration of FIRs, arrests, surveillance measures and police action during the protests, the scrutiny of online content suggests that the State’s response has not been confined to restoring public order at protest sites. It has continued into the spaces where the protest is remembered, discussed and documented.

The Muslim protester and the question of unequal policing

The allegations involving Muslim protesters and volunteers add another layer of concern to the story. It is important to be precise here: the available reporting does not establish a universal policy of targeting Muslims, and individual allegations must be independently verified. But the number and nature of the reported incidents are serious enough to raise questions about whether Muslim citizens have been disproportionately exposed to police scrutiny and coercion.

One of the most striking cases concerns Muhammad Junaid, a volunteer who was reportedly involved in distributing food and water to protesters. According to reporting cited from Scroll, Junaid alleged that police action extended to his family while authorities were looking for him. His relatives were reportedly detained or questioned, and documents were allegedly seized, while police denied taking action against his family. The allegation is significant not simply because it concerns one individual. It raises the possibility that the pressure of policing can extend beyond the person who participated in a protest and reach those around them.

The reported targeting of families is especially troubling because it changes the nature of State pressure. When a person is arrested for an alleged offence, the State is at least claiming to act against that individual. When police action allegedly reaches parents, siblings, spouses or in-laws, the message becomes broader. It suggests that the consequences of dissent may not be confined to the person who chose to protest.

A similar concern emerged in reports concerning five Muslim students returning from Jantar Mantar towards Jamia Millia Islamia. According to The Siasat Daily, the students were taken to a police station and later released after activists and a reporter questioned the police action. The students alleged that they had been picked up without explanation and threatened with a case when they questioned the detention, while the police position was reportedly that the action amounted to verification. Again, these incidents require independent scrutiny rather than sweeping conclusions.

But the pattern is difficult to ignore when placed alongside the case of three young Muslim men in Assam. The Wire reported that Monjur Rahman, Ashraful Islam and Abdul Kashem were arrested after allegedly attempting to organise a peaceful protest in solidarity with the wider movement. Their families said they had sought permission for the demonstration and that the proposed protest had not even taken place. The men were nevertheless booked under serious provisions, including Section 152 of the BNS, while their families disputed the allegations. The central question is not whether every action against a Muslim protester is necessarily communal. The more fundamental question is whether the State is applying the same standards of suspicion, surveillance and force to citizens regardless of their religious identity. That is the test of equal citizenship; and it is a test that must be answered through evidence, transparency and accountability.

Moreover, in Assam, advocate Ariful Islam was remanded to judicial custody until August 7 after being detained by the police for more than 24 hours. According to lawyer and Congress spokesperson Aman Wadud, who represented him in court, Islam was not participating in the protest but was near the site in his advocate’s uniform, carrying his Bar Council identity card and copies of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). As reported by Maktoob Media, Wadud alleged that despite identifying himself as a practising lawyer, Islam was booked under Section 152 of the BNS and remanded to judicial custody. Wadud also pointed to the contradiction between the arrest and the Union government’s assurance that cases against peaceful protesters would be withdrawn, describing the police action as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

West Bengal and the Invocation of the Goonda Act

The legal response to the protests also escalated beyond the filing of FIRs. In West Bengal, the State government invoked the West Bengal Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2026, commonly known as the Goonda Act, for the first time since its enactment in connection with violence during the Kolkata protest march.

Announcing the decision in the Assembly, Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari said around 70 people identified from the protest had “nothing to do with the student movement” and alleged that they had participated solely to create disorder. Seven FIRs were registered in connection with the violence, and police arrested 11 people, including 10 Muslims. The Chief Minister also condemned the reported attacks on journalists during the demonstration, stating that the law had been invoked to ensure “exemplary punishment” for those responsible.

The invocation of the legislation is significant because of the extraordinary powers it confers on the State. The Act allows authorities to order preventive detention for up to one year without trial, issue externment orders requiring individuals to leave specified districts and attach property allegedly connected to unlawful activities. Its constitutional validity is currently under challenge before the Calcutta High Court, with Opposition parties and civil rights groups arguing that its broad preventive detention provisions are susceptible to political misuse and could be used to suppress dissent.

The government has defended its decision by maintaining that the law is being applied not against peaceful protesters but against individuals accused of orchestrating violence and attacking police personnel and journalists. According to the State, shoes, bottles and other objects were thrown at security personnel and members of the media, while the police exercised restraint despite alleged attempts to provoke a stronger response.

Student organisers, however, dispute that account. The Students’ Federation of India (SFI) condemned the attacks on journalists but alleged that “agent provocateurs” linked to the BJP had infiltrated the demonstration to derail the protest and discredit the movement. As reported by Maktoob Media, SFI leaders also accused the Kolkata Police of using tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators and alleged that several student protesters sustained injuries. They further called for an independent investigation, claiming that video footage showed individuals allegedly associated with the BJP participating in the violence.

The competing narratives surrounding the Kolkata violence underscore the importance of an impartial investigation. Those responsible for attacking journalists, police personnel or damaging public property must be identified and prosecuted on the basis of evidence. At the same time, the decision to invoke a preventive detention law with sweeping powers in the context of a political protest inevitably raises wider questions about proportionality, necessity and the extent to which extraordinary legislation should be used in situations involving public demonstrations.

The arrests also drew further scrutiny because 10 of the 11 people arrested were Muslims. Responding to these reports, CJP spokesperson Ratna Singh said the party had received information that protesters had been detained by police in both Assam and West Bengal and that many of those detained were allegedly Muslims. She stated that if those reports were accurate, any targeting of individuals on the basis of religion would be unlawful and deeply concerning. While these allegations remain contested, they add to broader concerns raised elsewhere during the protests regarding whether policing and criminal proceedings were being applied uniformly across communities.

Bihar and the problem of the government’s promise

Bihar presents perhaps the clearest example of why the Centre’s assurance requires greater scrutiny. The State witnessed serious incidents during the Bihar Bandh, including allegations of stone-pelting and damage to public property, and those incidents must be investigated. The legitimacy of a protest does not provide immunity to anyone who commits violence. At the same time, the State’s response must remain proportionate and individualised.

The Hindu reported that police opened fire using AK-47 in Siwan after protesters allegedly continued throwing stones, with at least three protesters injured and police officers also reportedly hurt. The said police officer was later suspended. Scroll separately reported that police opened fire in Jehanabad after protesters allegedly damaged the gate of the district magistrate’s residence and threw stones, while more than 100 people were reportedly arrested. These incidents demonstrate why accountability cannot be one-sided. Those who attacked police officers or damaged property must be investigated, but allegations of excessive police force must also be independently examined. The same principle applies to the FIRs.

The political language around protest is changing

The legal and physical response to dissent has also been accompanied by increasingly charged political language. The Hindu reported that BJP state president Shamik Bhattacharya described protesters involved in a West Bengal rally as “anti-nationals” amid allegations of violence, while an FIR was also registered against actor Sreelekha Mitra over an allegedly objectionable poster depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The reporting also documented competing allegations about violence and attacks on journalists during the protest.

There is no question that violence, vandalism and attacks on journalists must be investigated. Political speech does not provide immunity from criminal law. But the use of labels such as “anti-national” has consequences beyond rhetoric. It can transform the public understanding of dissent from a democratic right into a security threat. Once protesters are framed as threats rather than citizens, stronger State intervention becomes easier to justify. That is why political language matters. The difference between calling someone a protester and calling them an anti-national is not merely semantic. One recognises a citizen exercising a political right. The other places that citizen outside the boundaries of legitimate dissent.

The protest has ended; the questions have not

The resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan may have brought the immediate political confrontation to a close, but it has not resolved the questions raised by the State’s response to the protests. Those questions extend far beyond whether the FIRs against protesters will eventually be withdrawn. They concern the use of force against demonstrators, including allegations of excessive police action and the reported use of pellet guns. They concern the registration of FIRs despite assurances that protest-related cases would not continue, the arrests and judicial custody that followed, and reports that police are now awaiting government approval before withdrawing those cases. They concern the deployment of facial-recognition technology and the monitoring of online speech long after protesters had left the streets. They concern the invocation of extraordinary laws such as West Bengal’s Goonda Act, allegations that Muslim protesters and volunteers were disproportionately targeted, and the political language that increasingly sought to portray demonstrators as “anti-nationals”, “outsiders” or agents of disorder rather than citizens exercising a democratic right.

None of these developments can be viewed in isolation. Taken together, they reveal a broader pattern in which the State’s response to dissent extended well beyond maintaining public order. The protest moved from the streets into police stations, courtrooms, surveillance systems and social media platforms. What began as a movement demanding accountability for failures in the education system became, in many instances, a test of how far the State would go in policing dissent and political opposition.

This does not mean that acts of violence, attacks on journalists or damage to public property should go unpunished. Those responsible must be identified and prosecuted on the basis of evidence. But the same standard of accountability must apply to the State. Allegations of excessive force must be independently investigated. The circumstances surrounding injuries sustained during police action must be examined. The use of facial-recognition technology and expanded digital surveillance at protest sites requires greater transparency. The decision to register FIRs despite public assurances demands an explanation. And allegations of selective targeting, including those involving Muslim protesters and their families, cannot simply be dismissed without an impartial inquiry.

The end of a protest cannot mark the end of accountability. Withdrawing FIRs, if that is ultimately done, would provide relief to many protesters, but it would not answer the larger questions raised by the State’s conduct during and after the movement. A democracy is measured not only by its willingness to hear dissent but also by the limits it places on its own exercise of power. Those limits are precisely what the protests have placed under scrutiny, and they remain unresolved long after the streets have emptied.

Other detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.

Related:

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

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 July 2026: A dissent that was brutally put down, a crackdown after the protest ended 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.