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

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

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

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

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

Challenge before Delhi High Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proceedings before the Delhi High Court on excessive force by Police

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before the evidence came judicial scrutiny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court also hears an NIA probe plea

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

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

The bar stands with the students

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complete SCBA resolution may be read here.

The complete SCAORA resolution may be read here.

Bombay Bar Association: Democratic engagement cannot be replaced by force

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statement may be read below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 23, 2026

Bar Council of India breaks ranks, backs State narrative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He says… pic.twitter.com/WsNPwlHZV4

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 23, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

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

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

Alam Khan outside his home in Barpeta

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

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

Alam Khan along with CJP Team Assam, outside his home

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

A citizenship dispute dating back more than two decades

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

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

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

A case made difficult by family history rather than law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documentary evidence establishing citizenship

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

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

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

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

Tribunal rejects a mechanical approach to citizenship determination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral evidence receives equal evidentiary weight

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

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

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

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

Administrative negligence cannot defeat citizenship

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

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

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

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

A holistic appreciation of evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alam Khan holds up the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order

Why this order matters

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

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

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

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

A victory beyond the courtroom

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

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

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

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

CJP’s continuing commitment

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

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

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

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

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

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

Gauhati High Court upholds foreigner declaration, rejects mental illness plea

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

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

Recent decisions of three different High Courts, the Bombay High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Allahabad High Court, although arising from entirely different factual situations, reveal a remarkably consistent judicial approach towards police accountability. Each case concerns a distinct stage of the criminal process. The Bombay High Court examined the legality of custodial violence committed during investigation and the extent to which statutory protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could shield police officers accused of assaulting a suspect. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dealt with compliance with the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the constitutional requirement that every arrested person be informed, in writing, of the grounds of arrest. The Allahabad High Court, on the other hand, addressed what appeared at first glance to be a routine bail application but eventually transformed it into an inquiry into police negligence that had delayed adjudication of the applicants’ liberty.

Viewed independently, each judgment addresses a different procedural or substantive question. One concerns custodial violence, another concerns arrest procedure, and the third concerns administrative negligence in criminal proceedings. Yet, when read together, these decisions reveal an emerging constitutional narrative that extends well beyond their immediate facts. Collectively, they reject the notion that police accountability is confined to instances of spectacular misconduct such as torture or illegal detention. Instead, they emphasise that accountability permeates every stage of criminal administration—from the manner in which investigations are conducted, to the procedural safeguards accompanying arrest, to the institutional obligation of police authorities to cooperate with courts in the timely administration of justice.

Significantly, none of these judgments merely reiterates settled legal principles. Each court fashions remedies that seek to strengthen institutional compliance. The Bombay High Court refuses to allow police officers to invoke statutory immunity where allegations concern custodial assault to extract a confession, thereby reaffirming that violence cannot be characterised as an act performed in discharge of official duty. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while declining to invalidate the arrest on the peculiar facts before it, nevertheless directs the Director General of Police to issue fresh circulars, warns that future violations of constitutional safeguards may invite departmental action, and treats repeated non-compliance with binding precedent as a matter of grave institutional concern. The Allahabad High Court goes a step further by imposing monetary costs on the State for police negligence that delayed adjudication of a bail application and permitting recovery of those costs from the erring officials after departmental enquiry.

What unites these judgments is not merely judicial criticism of the police. Courts have, on numerous occasions, criticised investigative lapses, custodial violence and administrative inefficiency. The significance of these three decisions lies in the manner in which the High Courts conceptualise police accountability. Rather than treating constitutional guarantees as abstract ideals, they recognise that the rule of law depends upon everyday institutional compliance. A police officer who assaults a suspect during investigation, an investigating officer who disregards mandatory constitutional safeguards while effecting an arrest, and officials whose negligence prolongs a person’s incarceration each undermine the administration of criminal justice, albeit in different ways. The constitutional injury is not confined to physical violence or illegal detention; it also extends to procedural disregard and bureaucratic indifference that compromise personal liberty and erode public confidence in the justice system.

Equally noteworthy is the evolving understanding of judicial supervision reflected in these decisions. Traditionally, courts have confined themselves to determining the legality of individual executive actions. These judgments demonstrate a willingness to move beyond adjudication of individual disputes towards ensuring institutional compliance. Directions to police headquarters, recommendations for departmental action, warnings of disciplinary proceedings, recovery of costs from erring officers, and rejection of statutory immunities collectively indicate that High Courts are increasingly employing their constitutional jurisdiction not merely to remedy individual violations but also to improve systemic functioning of law enforcement agencies. In doing so, they reaffirm the constitutional proposition that executive discretion remains subordinate to judicially enforceable standards of legality.

Another common feature is the courts’ refusal to permit procedural or statutory provisions to become instruments of impunity. In the Bombay case, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, intended to protect honest public servants from vexatious litigation, is interpreted in a manner that prevents its misuse as a shield against allegations of custodial torture. In the Madhya Pradesh case, Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is read in harmony with Article 22(1) and Supreme Court precedent, emphasising that communication of grounds of arrest is not a technical formality but a substantive constitutional guarantee. In the Allahabad case, the Court treats delays caused by police negligence not as mere administrative lapses but as failures that directly affect the timely adjudication of liberty.

These developments assume particular importance in the context of India’s ongoing transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. While legislative reform has altered statutory language and introduced procedural modifications, these judgments underscore that the constitutional foundations governing criminal procedure remain unchanged. Police powers continue to derive their legitimacy from constitutional limitations rather than statutory discretion alone. Neither investigative convenience, administrative inefficiency nor claims of official duty can dilute the guarantees embedded in Articles 14, 21 and 22.

Against this backdrop, the three decisions merit close examination—not merely as isolated judicial pronouncements, but as markers of an emerging jurisprudence that insists upon constitutional discipline at every stage of policing. Each judgment contributes a distinct dimension to that jurisprudence. Read together, they illuminate how High Courts are increasingly deploying constitutional principles to strengthen police accountability, reinforce procedural safeguards, and preserve the rule of law in everyday criminal administration.

Custodial Violence Is Never ‘Official Duty’: Bombay High Court

The first judgment in this piece comes from the Bombay High Court, which reaffirmed a fundamental constitutional principle: the authority to investigate crime does not include the authority to use violence. In Sanjay Bapuso Dalvi & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that assaulting a suspect to extract a confession can never constitute an act performed in the discharge of official duty, thereby denying police officers the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Facts and the question before the court: The case arose from allegations that a man summoned to the Shivaji Nagar Police Station in Ichalkaranji during a murder investigation in November 2008 was detained overnight, assaulted and forced to confess. Following medical evidence and the complainant’s allegations, the Magistrate issued process against the police officers for offences including voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation. The Sessions Court refused to discharge them.

Before the High Court, the officers argued that the alleged acts occurred during investigation of a cognisable offence and therefore attracted the protection of Section 197 CrPC, which bars prosecution of public servants for acts committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty without prior governmental sanction.

The central issue was whether custodial assault allegedly committed to extract a confession could be regarded as an act connected with official duty.

Section 197 protects official functions, not abuse of power: Justice Sandesh Patil answered the question in the negative. The Court reiterated the settled principle that Section 197 is intended to protect honest public servants from vexatious litigation arising out of acts reasonably connected with their official responsibilities. It is not a substantive immunity from prosecution but a procedural safeguard available only where the impugned act bears a reasonable nexus with official duty.

Drawing upon the Constitution Bench decision in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari and subsequent rulings including Ganesh Chandra Jew v. State of Orissa, Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand and Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reaffirmed that even acts committed in excess of authority may require sanction if they remain connected to lawful official functions. However, criminal conduct wholly divorced from those functions cannot claim statutory protection merely because it occurred during official employment.

The distinction was decisive in the present case. Investigation of offences is undoubtedly an official function. Assaulting a suspect to secure a confession is not. The Court therefore rejected the argument that every act committed during an investigation automatically becomes an official act. The setting of the misconduct cannot determine its legal character.

Drawing a constitutional boundary: The Court emphasised that the police possess statutory authority to interrogate suspects, collect evidence and investigate offences, but no law authorises “third-degree” methods or custodial violence. Such conduct is not an excess committed while performing official duty; it is conduct wholly outside the scope of lawful police functions.

Justice Patil accordingly held that assaulting a suspect for a confessional statement “would never be said to be an act in discharge of official duty.” Accepting the prosecution case at face value—as required at the stage of issuance of process—the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 had no application.

Importantly, the Court confined itself to the legal issue before it. It did not determine the guilt of the accused officers but only whether the prosecution could proceed without governmental sanction. Questions relating to the truth of the allegations were left to trial.

Constitutional significance: Although framed as a dispute over Section 197 CrPC, the judgment is rooted in the broader constitutional prohibition against custodial violence. It aligns with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, all of which recognise that coercive interrogation is incompatible with Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.

The decision also reinforces the evidentiary policy underlying the law governing confessions. Indian criminal law has long treated police-obtained confessions with suspicion, recognising the dangers of coercive investigation. By refusing to extend statutory protection to allegations of custodial assault, the Bombay High Court ensures that Section 197 cannot become a procedural shield against accountability for torture.

More broadly, the judgment restores Section 197 to its intended purpose. The provision exists to protect bona fide exercise of public functions, not to immunise criminal misconduct. Had the Court accepted the petitioners’ argument, virtually every allegation of custodial violence could have been insulated behind the requirement of prior sanction simply because it occurred during an investigation.

Instead, the Court reaffirmed a fundamental constitutional proposition: official authority ends where illegality begins. Police powers derive legitimacy from law, and once those powers are exercised through violence or coercion, they cease to be protected as official acts. In doing so, the Bombay High Court laid down the first principle that runs through all three judgments—constitutional policing begins with recognising that the State’s coercive powers are always subject to constitutional limits.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Procedural Safeguards Are Constitutional Guarantees: Madhya Pradesh High Court

If the Bombay High Court’s decision placed substantive limits on police power, the Madhya Pradesh High Court focused on how that power must be exercised. In Dharmendra Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court examined the constitutional requirement that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), while issuing far-reaching directions to ensure institutional compliance by the police.

Facts and the legal issue: The petitioner challenged his brother’s arrest under the NDPS Act through a habeas corpus petition, contending that the arrest was illegal because the investigating agency had failed to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, as mandated by Section 47 BNSS and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana.

The State argued that although no separate written memorandum of grounds of arrest had been served, the accused had received a written notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the seizure memo recording recovery of 86.85 kilograms of ganja, and information regarding the arrest had been conveyed to his family. The question before the Court, therefore, was whether these documents constituted sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.

Section 47 BNSS gives statutory effect to Article 22: The Division Bench of Justices G.S. Ahluwalia and Anuradha Shukla treated Section 47 BNSS not as a mere procedural provision but as a statutory expression of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees every arrested person the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.

Relying on Pankaj Bansal, Mihir Rajesh Shah and Vihaan Kumar, the Court observed that the requirement of written communication is intended to eliminate disputes over whether the grounds of arrest were actually conveyed. Written communication enables an arrested person to effectively challenge detention, seek legal representation, oppose remand and apply for bail, thereby making Article 22 a meaningful safeguard rather than an empty formality.

Substantial compliance, but a strong institutional warning: On the facts, however, the Court declined to invalidate the arrest. It held that the Section 50 NDPS notice, the seizure memo signed by the accused and the communication made to his brother sufficiently informed him of the reasons for his arrest. Although no independent document titled “grounds of arrest” had been furnished, the constitutional objective underlying Section 47 BNSS stood substantially fulfilled.

The significance of the judgment, however, lies less in this conclusion than in what followed. The Bench expressed serious concern that investigating officers continued to violate binding constitutional requirements despite repeated Supreme Court decisions, earlier High Court rulings and even a circular issued by the Madhya Pradesh Police Headquarters directing strict compliance. Such repeated lapses, the Court observed, pointed either to negligence or deliberate disregard of constitutional safeguards—both of which it described as “alarming”.

In one of its strongest observations, the Court remarked that if investigating officers routinely ignored mandatory procedures, the police department had to introspect whether it was inadvertently helping offenders secure release through illegal arrests rather than effectively prosecuting them. Procedural safeguards, the Bench emphasised, strengthen criminal investigations; they do not weaken them.

From individual relief to institutional accountability: Recognising that constitutional rights cannot depend solely upon post facto judicial intervention, the Court issued prospective directions to the Director General of Police to circulate fresh instructions requiring strict compliance with Section 47 BNSS and the Supreme Court’s decisions. It further directed that where investigating officers violated these requirements, the department should ordinarily presume deliberate non-compliance, initiate departmental proceedings and consider suspension and major penalties.

These directions mark an important shift from correcting individual violations to addressing institutional deficiencies. Rather than treating procedural lapses as isolated mistakes, the Court sought to embed constitutional compliance within police administration itself.

Significance of the decision: The judgment expands the understanding of police accountability beyond cases of excessive force or illegal detention. It recognises that constitutional policing also demands faithful adherence to procedural safeguards governing arrest. By reading Section 47 BNSS as a statutory embodiment of Article 22, the Court reaffirmed that procedural requirements are not technicalities but constitutional guarantees protecting personal liberty.

Although the Court upheld the arrest on the peculiar facts of the case, it left no ambiguity about the law going forward. Police powers remain legitimate only when exercised in accordance with constitutional procedure. Compliance with written grounds of arrest is therefore not a matter of administrative convenience but an indispensable component of due process.

In doing so, the Madhya Pradesh High Court adds a second dimension to the emerging jurisprudence on police accountability. While the Bombay High Court held that custodial violence can never be protected as official duty, the Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasised that even lawful police powers lose constitutional legitimacy when exercised without scrupulous adherence to mandatory procedural safeguards.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Administrative Negligence as a Constitutional Wrong: Allahabad High Court

If the Bombay High Court’s decision drew a constitutional boundary around the misuse of police power, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court underscored that lawful policing is inseparable from procedural fairness, the Allahabad High Court’s decision introduces a third, and equally significant, dimension to constitutional policing. It recognises that the rule of law may be undermined not only through abuse of authority or violation of procedural safeguards, but also through institutional indifference, bureaucratic inertia and administrative negligence.

Unlike the previous two cases, the controversy before the Court did not concern custodial violence, illegal arrest or investigative excesses. It arose from what appeared to be an ordinary bail application. Yet, in deciding that application, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal transformed a routine criminal proceeding into a broader examination of how police inaction can obstruct judicial administration and unnecessarily prolong deprivation of personal liberty.

The judgment is important because it expands the constitutional understanding of police accountability beyond the exercise of coercive powers. It reminds that the constitutional obligations of investigating agencies do not end with lawful arrest or fair investigation. They equally encompass timely cooperation with judicial proceedings. Where police negligence delays adjudication of liberty, the constitutional injury is no less significant merely because it results from omission rather than affirmative abuse of power.

Facts and background: The proceedings arose from a bail application filed by the parents-in-law of a deceased woman, who were accused of offences under Sections 80(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Upon examining the material on record, the Court found no sufficient evidence indicating that the applicants had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death. The statements of independent witnesses pointed instead to ordinary matrimonial discord between the husband and wife. Finding no material to sustain the allegations against the parents-in-law, the Court concluded that they were entitled to bail.

Ordinarily, the matter would have ended there. Instead, before disposing of the application, the Court turned to an entirely different question—why a bail application that could have been decided much earlier had remained pending for more than ten additional days.

The answer, according to the Court, lay not in judicial delay or legal complexity, but in the repeated failure of the investigating agency to furnish the necessary instructions and case diary despite repeated communications from the High Court. It was this administrative lapse, rather than the merits of the bail application itself, that became the central focus of the judgment.

The institutional failure that prompted judicial intervention: The chronology recorded by the Court revealed a sustained pattern of administrative indifference rather than an isolated procedural lapse.

The Office of the Joint Director (Prosecution), attached to the Allahabad High Court, supplied a copy of the bail application to the police pairokar on June 17, 2026. This was followed by an alert to the Superintendent of Police on June 19 and a reminder on June 29. Despite these repeated communications, the investigating agency failed to furnish the necessary instructions to enable the Government Advocate to assist the Court.

Even when the matter was taken up on 3 July 2026, the Court attempted to facilitate compliance by directing the prosecution to obtain the case diary electronically through the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS), thereby eliminating any practical difficulty in transmitting records.

Yet even this direction went unheeded. Instead of producing the case diary, the police supplied only the criminal antecedents of the accused, leaving the Court without the material necessary to decide the bail application. The sequence demonstrated that the delay was not the consequence of unavoidable administrative constraints. The High Court had repeatedly reminded the investigating agency, suggested alternative methods of compliance and afforded ample opportunity to furnish the requisite records. Nevertheless, the necessary instructions remained unavailable, preventing timely adjudication of a matter directly affecting personal liberty.

Translating judicial censure into institutional accountability: Having concluded that the delay in deciding the bail application was attributable solely to police negligence, the Court declined to treat the lapse as a matter warranting only administrative criticism. Instead, it imposed costs of ₹50,000 upon the State Government, directing that the amount be paid to the applicants. Simultaneously, it granted the State liberty to recover the amount from the erring officials after conducting an appropriate departmental enquiry.

This direction is perhaps the most significant aspect of the judgment. Indian courts have frequently expressed dissatisfaction with administrative inefficiency or investigative lapses, but far fewer decisions translate such criticism into enforceable consequences. By imposing monetary costs, the Court recognised that bureaucratic negligence is not a victimless administrative failure. Where executive inaction delays adjudication of liberty, the prejudice is suffered by litigants whose incarceration continues solely because the State failed to discharge its institutional obligations.

Equally significant is the Court’s refusal to allow the burden of that negligence to remain permanently upon the public exchequer. By permitting recovery from the responsible officials after due enquiry, the judgment carefully distinguishes between institutional liability and individual accountability. The State remains constitutionally answerable for the functioning of its agencies, but the financial consequences of proven negligence need not ultimately be borne by taxpayers. In doing so, the Court fashioned a remedy that simultaneously compensates those affected, reinforces governmental responsibility and preserves personal accountability within the police hierarchy.

More importantly, the order signals that constitutional accountability is not exhausted by declarations of illegality. Administrative indifference that obstructs judicial proceedings may itself attract tangible consequences. The judgment therefore moves beyond symbolic judicial disapproval and adopts a remedial approach aimed at improving institutional discipline within the criminal justice system.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Police Accountability: From individual misconduct to institutional constitutionalism

At first glance, the three High Court decisions appear to address entirely different questions. The Bombay High Court considered whether police officers accused of custodial assault could invoke the protection of Section 197 CrPC. The Madhya Pradesh High Court examined whether the constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing under Article 22 and Section 47 BNSS had been complied with. The Allahabad High Court dealt with police negligence that delayed adjudication of a bail application.

Read individually, each judgment resolves a distinct procedural issue. Read together, however, they articulate a broader constitutional doctrine on police accountability. The common thread running through all three decisions is that the legitimacy of policing does not flow merely from statutory powers but from faithful adherence to constitutional limitations. Police accountability is no longer confined to punishing overt abuse such as custodial violence or illegal detention. It now extends to every stage of the criminal justice process—from investigation and arrest to procedural fairness, administrative diligence and cooperation with judicial institutions.

The Bombay High Court establishes the first principle: official duty cannot be used as a shield for unconstitutional conduct. Custodial assault and coercive violence are fundamentally incompatible with lawful policing and therefore fall outside the protection of Section 197 CrPC. The decision reinforces that statutory immunity exists to protect bona fide public functions, not acts that violate Article 21.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court adds a second dimension by treating procedural safeguards as constitutional guarantees rather than technical formalities. Reading Section 47 BNSS through Article 22 and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pankaj Bansal, Mihir Rajesh Shah and Vihaan Kumar, the Court holds that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing is integral to constitutional fairness. More importantly, it moves beyond the individual case to address systemic police non-compliance, directing institutional reforms and departmental accountability so that constitutional safeguards become part of everyday policing rather than case-specific judicial corrections.

The Allahabad High Court completes the trilogy by recognising that constitutional injury may arise not only from misuse of power but also from administrative indifference. Police accountability includes the obligation to assist the administration of justice with diligence and efficiency. By imposing costs of ₹50,000 on the State for avoidable delay in deciding a bail application, directing payment to the applicants, permitting recovery from erring officers after departmental enquiry, and ordering an inquiry into the lapses, the Court converts bureaucratic negligence into a matter of constitutional accountability. Administrative omissions that unnecessarily prolong deprivation of liberty are treated as inconsistent with Article 21 no less than affirmative executive misconduct.

Collectively, these judgments also demonstrate the evolving role of constitutional courts. Rather than merely correcting completed legal wrongs, the High Courts increasingly function as institutional supervisors, issuing directions aimed at improving governance, strengthening internal accountability mechanisms and embedding constitutional discipline within police administration. Whether by denying statutory protection to officers accused of custodial violence, directing police authorities to institutionalise compliance with arrest safeguards, or imposing financial consequences for administrative negligence, the courts are moving beyond dispute resolution towards structural constitutional oversight.

Equally significant is the continuity they establish despite the transition to India’s new criminal laws. Although the BNSS has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, these decisions affirm that legislative reform cannot dilute constitutional guarantees. The Constitution—and particularly Articles 21 and 22—continues to provide the normative framework within which every police power must be exercised.

Taken together, the three judgments articulate an emerging constitutional ethic of policing founded upon three interconnected propositions:

• Police powers cannot be exercised through violence or coercion that falls outside lawful investigation.
• Every exercise of coercive authority must comply with constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards protecting personal liberty.
• Police institutions bear a continuing obligation to function diligently, transparently and responsibly in aid of the administration of justice.

The cumulative message is both simple and profound. Constitutional policing is measured not merely by the absence of abuse, but by affirmative fidelity to the rule of law at every stage of the criminal justice process. In reaffirming that principle, the Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Allahabad High Courts have collectively advanced an important and evolving doctrine of institutional constitutionalism—one in which police legitimacy derives not from the breadth of statutory power, but from disciplined adherence to constitutional values.

Related:

The Dalmandi Judgment: Allahabad HC clears way for religious site acquisition

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

After 30 years, Orissa high court orders SBI to pay for Rs. 40 lakh to two bank sweepers

When uniformed personnel stand accused India’s highest courts have spoken boldly yet acted narrowly

The post Three High Courts, One Message: Police power has constitutional limits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Intervention by UN Special Rapporteurs

According to the signatories, the United Nations has already taken note of this crisis. In May 2026, UN experts wrote to the Indian government to raise alarm over human rights violations caused by the SIR process, particularly noting the severe impact on Muslims and Bengali minorities in West Bengal.

“The UN Special Rapporteurs (UNSRs) of the UN Human Rights Council, by a Joint communication dated 1 May, 2026… formally raised many concerns regarding the SIR process. It is a communication by UNSR on Minority Issues along with the UNSR on promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the UNSR on freedom of religion or belief, citing violations of human rights, particularly of the Muslim minorities in India due to the SIR process in India. It has further highlighted the SIR process in West Bengal, considering it as a matter of ‘particular concern’.”

The Bihar SIR: disproportionate exclusions

It is further stated by the petitioners that while the ECI claimed the revision was meant to ensure only eligible voters were listed, a 2025 pilot program in Bihar showed alarming bias. Millions of voters were removed in under 100 days. Muslims, women, and the poor were heavily targeted, with very few allowed to successfully appeal their deletion.

“According to the ECI, the goal of the SIR process is to ensure that ‘the names of all eligible citizens are included in the electoral roll’… The ECI ordered a SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar in 2025, seeking to re-verify the eligibility of over 81 million electors within a compressed timeline of less than 100 days. Muslims-approximately 17% of the state’s population-accounted for roughly one-third of the 4.7 million voters removed… Women reportedly constituted nearly 60% of those excluded from the draft rolls, despite comprising 47.8% of the electorate…” as stated 

52 million names deleted nationwide

According to the petition to the NHRC, following the Bihar SIR, the SIR process was expanded to 12 States and Union Territories. An estimated 52 million names were erased. West Bengal was hit the hardest, losing 9.1 million voters. People with valid IDs were removed over tiny spelling mistakes, with Muslims bearing the brunt of these deletions.

“Across the 12 States and Union Territories, approximately 52 million names have allegedly been removed, with West Bengal particularly affected, where a total of 9.1 million names were reportedly deleted from the register… Muslim voters are reported to have accounted for 34% of total deletions, against a 27% share of the State’s population; nearly two-thirds of those deleted belong to the minority community. It is reported that approximately 95% of deleted voters were Muslim… on the pretext of minor and administratively common spelling inconsistencies”  as wrote

Organised targeting via ‘Form 7’

The representation further emphasises that while the law allows citizens to object to names on the voter list using ‘Form 7’, this tool was hijacked by political affiliates to run organised campaigns meant to strike Muslims from the voter rolls in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Assam.

“Reports indicate that, in several States, this mechanism was used for organised, large-scale campaigns targeting Muslim residents: in Gujarat’s Somnath constituency, over 15,000 Form 7 applications are reported to have been filed by just 269 individuals… In Madhya Pradesh’s Indore, over 11,000 such applications were filed, several traced to BJP-affiliated individuals… In Assam… the Chief Minister is reported to have publicly directed party workers to file such applications against Bengali-speaking Muslim residents, stating in January 2026 that a specified number of such residents ‘will get deleted’ and that his ‘job is to make them suffer’…”

The use of opaque AI systems

According to the signatories, to flag errors in voter data, the government used an Artificial Intelligence system. This system operated without transparency, meaning nobody knows its error rates or if it was biased against certain communities, leading to millions losing their right to vote without proper due process.

“The exercise reportedly employed an AI-driven system to flag ‘irregularities’ in voter data, without adequate transparency regarding its methodology, error rates, or safeguards against bias raising serious due-process concerns given the scale and finality of the consequences (loss of the right to vote) that flow from such flagging.”

Leaders conflating citizens with “infiltrators”

It is further stated by the petitioners that top government officials have publicly used dangerous language, referring to deleted voters as illegal immigrants. By using terms like “infiltrators” and “purifying” the voter rolls, leaders are turning legitimate Indian Muslim citizens into targets for discrimination.

It is further pointed out that “We submit that such statements by holders of high public office, made in the context of an ongoing administrative exercise, are liable to conflate lawful Indian Muslim citizens with foreign nationals… the Union Home Minister described the exercise in terms of a ‘Detect, Delete and Deport’ formula, and separately characterised it as a mechanism to ‘purify’ electoral rolls of ‘infiltrators’… risk normalising discriminatory treatment of a religious minority in the conduct of a State function.”

The Supreme Court’s “structurally impossible” timelines

The minimalist reliefs granted by the Supreme Court are also mentioned. According to the representation, when taken to the Supreme Court, the judiciary declined to stop the process. For West Bengal, the Court gave removed voters just a few days to file and win appeals before the elections. Because there were 3.4 million appeals, this timeline made it completely impossible for the tribunals to give anyone a fair hearing. It is stated that “The Supreme Court of India declined to stay the SIR process (order dated 6 April 2026)… the Supreme Court permitted West Bengal voters removed from the rolls to regain voting rights if their appeals were allowed by appellate tribunals before 21 and 27 April 2026… a compressed adjudicatory timetable applied to an exercise involving over 3.4 million appeals, which the Petitioner submits made it structurally impossible for tribunals to conduct fair and effective review of each case.”

The violation of international human rights

The NHRC has been alerted to the fact that the UN Special Rapporteurs have warned that removing millions of minorities from voter lists based on discriminatory rhetoric violates international treaties. Denying citizens their basic right to vote is a direct violation of human rights.

The communication explicitly expressed concern about discriminatory rhetorics by politicians and senior public figures… ‘amount to potential incitement to discrimination within the meaning of article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’… The Special Rapporteurs noted that the removal of an entire religious community through the SIR process risks constituting ‘an official endorsement of discriminatory attitudes towards Muslim citizens’… Therefore, we respectfully submit that being denied the ability to participate in the electoral process i.e., the right to vote and to be represented, is in itself a violation of human rights.

The appeal to the NHRC

According to the signatories, because the NHRC failed to step in during the initial Bihar pilot, the petitioners are now demanding that the Commission use its legal powers immediately. They want the NHRC to register a formal complaint, demand data from the Election Commission, hold open public hearings, and halt any further voter revisions until an investigation is done.

The signatories request the NHRC to:

“(a)  take cognizance of and register the present representation as a formal complaint under Section 12(a)(i), 12(a)(ii), 12(b) read with section 12(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993;

(b)  call for detailed reports from the relevant authorities such as Election Commission of India, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, and the concerned State Election Machinery of Bihar and West Bengal, under Section 13 of the PHR Act, disclosing (i) the exact numbers of names deleted, State- and constituency-wise, with reasons for deletion; (ii) the number of objections and appeals filed and their outcomes; and (iii) data disaggregated by religion, caste/community and gender of persons excluded and of persons subsequently declared ineligible;

(c)  Immediately constitute and conduct an open, online public hearing into the matter  by summoning the petitioners, so that the allegations herein may be examined transparently and on record- even before issuance of notice to the Election Commission of India so that this Hon’ble Full Commission may have the benefit of hearing our presentations prior to issuing of such notice;

(d) Thereafter summon responsible officials of the Election Commission of India and the concerned Ministries to appear before the Commission and respond to the specific allegations set out herein, including in relation to the design, transparency and safeguards of the AI-driven flagging system used in the SIR exercise;

(e)  recommend, as an interim measure pending completion of the inquiry, that further extension or replication of the SIR exercise to additional States/Union Territories be held in abeyance, and that adequate time, transparent procedures and effective remedial mechanisms be put in place for any ‘claims and objections’ process already underway;

(f)  recommend such accountability measures in respect of public statements by functionaries that the Commission finds to have been discriminatory or to have incited hostility against a religious or linguistic minority; and

(g)  pass such other and further orders/recommendations as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(h)) In view of the recommendations been made by the Office of High Commission, this Hon’ble Commission should also provide them an opportunity of presenting their legal positions to the Commission in the light of international human rights law by way of an online hearing.”

NHRC set up under the Paris Principles

It is under India’s international obligations to international human rights standards that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India was established on October 12, 1993, under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993. The PHRA and the NHRC are designed to comply with the United Nations Paris Principles, which set the foundational global standards for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) regarding autonomy, mandate, and independence.

Signatories of the representation

According to the document, the representation was signed by a coalition of eminent citizens and specialists including M G Devasahayam IAS (Retd), Convener, Forum for Electoral Integrity Jawhar Sircar IAS (Retd), Madhav Deshpande, Software Specialist, Venkatesh Nayak, RTI Specialist and Dr. Sant Prakash, Professor, Delhi University.

The representation dated July 23, 2026 can be accessed from here:

Related:

UN Rights Experts flag Discrimination in ECI’s SIR exercise, seek India’s response

Disenfranchisement route to Majoritarian Rule: Political Logic of SIR

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

The post ‘Forum for Electoral Integrity’ petitions NHRC over mass voter disenfranchisement under SIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi Police subsequently clarified that the order was not connected to the ongoing protests. In an official statement, the police said the authorisation was a “routine, quarterly extension” of powers under the NSA, issued on July 7, 2026, before the CJP protests began. The police maintained that no separate request had been initiated in relation to the protests and that the order had been “misinterpreted out of context.” The ANI post was later removed.

“Misleading information is circulating on social media claiming that the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has been granted detention powers under the National Security Act (NSA) specifically to suppress the ongoing CJP protests. 

In this regard, it is officially clarified that the order in question is a routine, quarterly extension of powers under the NSA, which is conventionally renewed every three months. The current renewal was issued on 07.07.2026 for the period effective from 19.07.2026 to 18.10.2026, predating the commencement of the CJP protests.

Furthermore, no specific request was initiated for this order in relation to recent events. The renewal constitutes a standard administrative procedure and has been misinterpreted out of context.”

Misleading information is circulating on social media claiming that the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has been granted detention powers under the National Security Act (NSA) specifically to suppress the ongoing CJP protests.
In this regard, it is officially clarified that the…

— Delhi Police (@DelhiPolice) July 23, 2026

But the controversy cannot be reduced to whether the NSA order was specifically issued against the protesters. The fear it generated reflects a deeper crisis of trust between the state and citizens exercising their right to dissent.

For a generation of students and young protesters, preventive detention powers do not exist as abstract legal provisions. They are understood through recent experiences of how the state has responded to mass movements. During the anti-CAA-NRC protests, Delhi witnessed widespread use of criminal cases, arrests and police action against students, activists and demonstrators. During the anti-CAA-NRC protests, thousands were detained. Several students and activists were arrested and booked under serious criminal provisions. Among those arrested were students such as Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who spent months in custody in the Delhi riots conspiracy case before being granted bail by the Delhi High Court, and Gulfisha Fatima, who was also arrested under stringent provisions including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Many, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam still remain behind bars without a trial.

Read CJP’s analysis on how NSA has been used against human rights defenders here.

The same concerns were visible during the farmers’ protests, where the state response involved extensive policing, preventive measures and criminal action against those associated with the movement. On January 26, 2021, following clashes during the Republic Day tractor march, several farmers and protesters were arrested and booked under multiple criminal provisions. Farmer leaders, including Rakesh Tikait, faced police cases and notices during the agitation. In February 2021, climate activist Disha Ravi was arrested by Delhi Police in connection with the ‘toolkit’ case related to the farmers’ protests and was later granted bail by a Delhi court. The Delhi Police’s deployment of barricades, restrictions on movement and preventive measures around protest sites also became a central feature of the state’s response to the mobilisation.

It is this history that gives significance to the appearance of NSA powers during another major protest movement. Even if the authorisation was routine, the episode demonstrates how the repeated use, or perceived availability, of exceptional state powers can create a climate of apprehension among protesters. When citizens already fear detention, surveillance and criminalisation, ambiguity around the expansion of such powers can have a chilling effect on participation in democratic protest.

The NSA is among India’s most powerful preventive detention laws. Unlike ordinary criminal proceedings, where the state must prove an offence through a trial, preventive detention allows the authorities to restrict liberty based on an anticipated threat. This extraordinary power has long been criticised for placing significant discretion in executive hands and for weakening ordinary safeguards of criminal justice.

Dubbed as India’s draconian version of the Rowlatt Act, read a legal history of the repressive provisions here.

The constitutional concern is not merely about one order or one protest. It is about the normalisation of exceptional measures in managing dissent. A democracy cannot measure public order only through the absence of protests; it must also consider whether citizens are able to organise, criticise and demand accountability without fear of punitive state action.

The rights to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a), peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b), and personal liberty under Article 21 are not conditional rights available only when the state is comfortable with the message being expressed. Restrictions may be imposed in accordance with law, but the use of coercive powers against protest movements requires the highest level of scrutiny.

The Delhi Police clarification may establish that the NSA renewal was not a measure introduced for the CJP and other organisation student-led protests. However, the reaction to the ANI tweet reveals a larger and uncomfortable reality: years of aggressive state responses to dissent have created an environment where even routine assertions of extraordinary powers are perceived through the lens of possible repression.

The question, therefore, is not only whether the NSA order was connected to this protest. The larger question is why protesters in India have come to view preventive detention powers as a warning rather than merely an administrative procedure.

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 A deleted tweet, an NSA order, and the shadow of past crackdowns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In support of this claim, Shrivastava has relied on a purported account attributed to former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, who was not in office during the Quit India Movement, to argue that it was the Indian National Army, and not the Quit India Movement, that ultimately compelled Britain to leave India.

“The leaders, be it Maulana Azad, Jawaharlal Nehru, J Prakash Narayan, or Aruna Asaf Ali, all of them accepted that the movement was a flop,” said Shrivastava. These statements were met with loud applause from members of the audience in the video.

It certainly would be an oversimplification to attribute India’s independence solely to the Quit India Movement of 1942, and would overlook several other significant developments that shaped the British decision to leave India. The role of the Indian National Army, the Royal Indian Navy mutiny, growing labour unrest, and Britain’s severe economic exhaustion after the Second World War were all undeniably important factors in hastening the end of colonial rule.

Yet acknowledging these factors does not diminish the importance of the Quit India Movement which profoundly altered the political landscape, a fact reflected in reports and British correspondence, including those sent to the then Prime Minister Winston Churchill. This will be examined in greater detail below but to dismiss the significance of the 1942 Movement altogether is not a serious and independent reading of history as claimed by Shrivastava.

For decades, a recurring theme in Hindutva discourse has been to downplay the significance of the 1942 Movement and recast India’s freedom struggle as a contest between competing movements. It serves a broader political purpose. This framing, first, diminishes the mass, cross-community, non-violent, anti-imperialist, and secular civil disobedience popularly associated with Gandhi and Nehru, and second, undermines the idea of a secular, democratic republic that emerged from it- a constitutional vision that is at odds with the ideological project of the RSS, and affiliated Hindutva organisations.

The push to diminish 1942 today comes from the political tradition that did not participate in and in some documented instances actively counselled against that very Movement.

What was the Quit India Movement?

In protest against the British decision to involve India in World War- II, without consulting Indian political leaders, the Congress ministries in the provinces resigned from office. By contrast, V.D. Savarkar, then president of the Hindu Mahasabha, had met Viceroy Linlithgow in October 1939 and called for Hindu-British cooperation. The Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar even went on to say, “favoured an unambiguous undertaking of dominion status at the end of the war.” He also offered that the Hindu Mahasabha would replace the Congress in provincial governments if the Congress ministries resigned. Reported in the National Herald.

The failure of the Cripps Mission in 1942 had intensified public discontent with British rule. Until then, Gandhi had largely followed a policy of avoiding actions that would hinder the British war effort. Following the collapse of the Cripps negotiations, however, he called for an open non-violent revolution. On July 14, 1942, the Congress Working Committee adopted a resolution declaring that the immediate end of British rule was essential not only for India’s freedom but also for the success of the Allied cause. The Quit India Resolution generated widespread enthusiasm across the country.

Meanwhile, RSS speakers had urged members to stay away from the Congress-led agitation, and these instructions, according to the British Home Department, were duly followed. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, a Hindu Mahasabha leader and minister in the undivided Bengal government, went a step further when in July 1942, he wrote to the British Governor of Bengal advising on measures to suppress the Quit India Movement in the province while arguing that Indians should continue to place their trust in the British for the region’s defence.

Gandhi was entrusted with leading the movement. Addressing a gathering, he said “There is a mantra, a short one, that I give you. You imprint it on your heart and let every breath of yours give an expression to it. The mantra is ‘do or die’. We shall either be free or die in the attempt …. Every one of you from this moment consider himself a free man or woman and even act as if you are free and no longer under the heel of this imperialism.”

The Congress urged people to undertake ten forms of non-violent resistance which included refraining from any commercial transactions with the British or the colonial government, displaying the tricolour on every home and window, boycotting cinema halls on the ground that the proceeds benefited the colonial administration, avoiding the courts, refusing to purchase foreign goods, withdrawing money from government banks, socially boycotting those who served the British government, avoiding any transactions that required recourse to colonial courts, leaving cities for villages, and ensuring that grain and other produce remained with the peasantry.

Subhas Chandra Bose, broadcasting from Azad Hind Radio on August 17, 1942, himself did not dismiss it and called it “non-violent guerrilla warfare,” and told listeners the “administrative machinery can be brought to a standstill” if the campaign continued. Bose, whom Shrivastva implicitly elevates over Gandhi, was on record treating 1942 as a serious and continuing front in the freedom struggle, not a failure to be measured against Congress.

What was the impact of the Quit India Movement?

Over 60,000 people were arrested by the end of 1943 alone, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Official casualty figures stood at 1,028 dead while Nehru’s own estimate put the toll closer to 10,000. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over the clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. The underground Congress Radio run by Usha Mehta during Quit India recorded messages from Gandhi and other leaders, moving location to location to dodge authorities. It reported on events from every nook and corner of the country and was the first to inform the nation about the Chittagong raid, the atrocities in Ashti and Chimur, and the strike in Jamshedpur. It operated for nearly three months before their arrest in November 1942. When the police arrived, the programme was coming to an end with Vande Mataram playing. Upon being asked to stop the record, Mehta reportedly commanded the police to stand at attention for the national song. The film Ae Watan Mere Watan directed by Kannan Iyer was a fictionalised tribute to Mehta and the historic Congress Radio that kept the Quit India flame alive against overwhelming odds.

Fifty-seven battalions of the British Army, alongside the entire police force, were deployed to suppress the movement. The sabotage of communications was so extensive that ground forces often could not reach certain areas, leading the Viceroy Linlithgow to suggest machine-gunning mobs from the air to regain control.

While the revolt was underway, Viceroy wrote a telegram to Churchill, the then Prime Minister:

“I am engaged here in meeting by far the most serious rebellion since that of 1857, the gravity and extent of which we have so far concealed from the world for reasons of military security. Mob violence remains rampant over large tracts of the countryside and I am by no means confident that we may not see in September a formidable attempt to renew this widespread sabotage of our war effort. The lives of Europeans in outlying places are in jeopardy.”

Contrary to his public pronouncements, Churchill gloomily disclosed to King George VI at one of their Tuesday luncheons in July 1942 that “the idea of the transfer of power in India had become an admitted inevitability in the minds of the British Party leaders.”

The movement’s structure, once its leadership was arrested within 24 hours, became spontaneous and largely leaderless. Parallel governments were established and functioned for extended periods.  In Ballia, UP, protestors overthrew the district administration and freed prisoners; it took the British weeks to reassert control. Railway lines, telegraph wires, and government buildings across the country were targeted to paralyse the war effort. The British kept a battleship on standby, reportedly to remove Gandhi and Congress leaders from India entirely, a step they ultimately judged too risky to take.

Exposing the Distortion: Why Attlee?

Like Shrivastava, many have relied on a purported statement by former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee to downplay the significance of the Quit India Movement. The claim originates from a second-hand account written in 1976 by P.V. Chakraborty, former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, who recounted a conversation he claimed to have had with Attlee during the latter’s visit to India in 1956. According to Chakraborty, Attlee identified the activities of the Indian National Army and the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny as the principal reasons for Britain’s withdrawal. “When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’.”

But why Attlee? This is the question that is never asked, and it deserves scrutiny.

Attlee was the British Labour Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951 the man who, as head of the postwar British government, oversaw and ultimately signed off on India’s independence in 1947. He was not the incumbent prime minister when Quit India Movement took place and therefore, his assessment of the movement’s impact is questionable. The argument asks one to accept a private, unverifiable, retrospective opinion as the authoritative verdict on which Indian freedom movement “really” mattered while dismissing Linlithgow’s real-time telegram, Churchill’s statement to the King, Bose’s real-time broadcasts, and the testimony of Indians who lived through the movement, as insufficient.

In fact, according to Churchill, the Attlee government was from the outset keen to leave India as soon as possible, regardless of the political situation. On December 12, 1946 he deplored “the ruthless logic to quit India regardless of what may happen there.”

But a moot question here should or ought to be, should we as Indians living in an India free of colonial yoke rely on colonial documentation and sources? Or seek independent assessments and verifications of how India and Indians achieved freedom from centuries of exploitative British rule?

No serious historian claims 1942 alone delivered independence in isolation. The Indian National Army trials, the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny, and Britain’s post-war financial exhaustion were all real and significant pressures, arguably the more immediate triggers of the 1947 transfer of power. That is a defensible historical position. But there is a wide gap between ‘1942 was not the sole cause’ and ‘1942 was a flop with no contribution’ According to Bipan Chandra, the INA’s public sympathy and the 1946 mutiny did not emerge in a vacuum and were given ‘fillip’ by the anti-imperialist sentiment and mass mobilisation that 1942 had already built. The movements were links in a chain, not rivals competing for sole credit. “After Quit India there cou1d be no retreat. Any future negotiations with the British Government could only be on the manner of the transfer of power. Independence was no longer a matter of bargain. And this became amply clear after the War,” Chandra wrote.

As for Aruna Asaf Ali, a figure Shrivastava names as having accepted the movement was a flop, is remembered specifically as the movement’s defining figure for hoisting the flag at Gowalia Tank.

Why This Matters

Reducing India’s freedom struggle to delegitimise the mass, cross-community, non-violent civil disobedience associated with Gandhi and the Congress follows a broader pattern in which organisations that have documented, historically-recorded records of aloofness from or active opposition to the 1942 movement now seek to rewrite it as inconsequential, while elevating alternative narratives more compatible with their own political lineage.

Acharya Kriplani (who was INC President in 1946-47) said, ‘It is my opinion that India could not have achieved its independence, but for the accession of strength which the nation received by the successive struggles started by Gandhiji. A nation which could throw a challenge to the Empire at a time when the armies of all the Allies were on Indian soil could no more be held in thraldom.’  Reported in Janata Weekly.

RS Sharma, Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Ramchandra Guha, and such historians Shrivastava has moved to discredit and insult without engaging their actual, published arguments, have also been separately accused in the current political establishment of distorting history through the education system.

But as Shrivastava claims, “All the letters of the leaders, all the books of the leaders, all the newspapers, reporters, the diaries of the British officers, the letters of the British officers, everything is in the National Archives. Take a look at it, the truth will be revealed.”

Sources that are interesting to examine also are:

Several American journalists famously covered Mahatma Gandhi, most notably United Press correspondent Webb Miller, who provided worldwide eyewitness accounts of the 1930 Salt Satyagraha. Other prominent figures include Louis Fischer, who spent a week at Gandhi’s ashram in 1942, and Chicago Tribune reporter William L. Shirer

The definitive account of the Congress Underground Radio was documented by historian and academic Dr. Usha Thakkar in her book, Congress Radio: Usha Mehta and the Underground Radio Station of 1942, published by Penguin Random House India. [1, 2]

National Archives of India (NAI): Located in New Delhi, the NAI holds the Home Political Department files that contain intercepted correspondence, censorship reports, and data on the suppression of the “Secret Congress Radio” spearheaded by Usha Mehta. [1, 2, 3]

The film based on the historic Congress Radio is Ae Watan Mere Watan. Directed by Kannan Iyer, the 2024 Hindi-language historical thriller stars Sara Ali Khan as Usha Mehta, a 22-year-old college student in Mumbai who operated an underground, anti-British radio station during the Quit India movement of 1942  For many in Assam, citizenship isn’t a birthright taken for granted—it’s a legal battle fought after decades of living in the only home they’ve ever known.

Remembering the courageous Aruna Asaf Ali today. Her historic act of hoisting the Indian flag at Gowalia Tank during the Quit India Movement remains a powerful symbol of defiance.

Readers encountering this argument should ask questions: What is the primary source? Is it contemporaneous or retrospective? And who benefits from the comparison being drawn?

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Tanishka Shah)

Related:

How Hindutva forces colluded with both the British & Jinnah against the historic ‘Quit India’ movement: Archives

Past and Prejudice

The post Debunking the ‘Quit India Was Useless’ Myth appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@tabassum_b pic.twitter.com/u4VPgxgP8p

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

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

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

Breaking

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

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

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) July 22, 2026

A movement finds local echo

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

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

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

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Mumbai’s streets see continued mobilisation despite detentions

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

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

“Dharmendra Pradhan must resign”

“Inquilab Zindabad”

“Jai Bhim”

“Vande Mataram”

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

Shameful Act By @MumbaiPolice

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

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

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

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

— Rana Ayyub (@RanaAyyub) July 22, 2026

Protesters detained in Mumbai

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

— The Wire (@thewire_in) July 22, 2026

Police detentions before protest could take shape

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

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

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

Hundreds booked, FIRs registered across Mumbai

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

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

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

Students allege police surveillance and intimidation

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

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

Legal assistance for students as cases mount

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

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

Political support arrives, but students maintain independence

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

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

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

वन नेशन, वन इमोशन!

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

दिल्लीतील अमानुष दडपशाही आणि देशभरातील विद्यार्थ्यांच्या अटकेच्या…

— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) July 22, 2026

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

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

— Aaditya Thackeray (@AUThackeray) July 21, 2026

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

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

मी सर्व… https://t.co/5MHwdJGn14

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) July 21, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Core Question: Maintaining order or criminalising dissent?

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

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

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

Related:

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 20 Delhi crackdown becomes catalyst for nationwide mobilisation

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

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

Detailed report may be read here.

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

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

Injured protesters return, movement expands at Jantar Mantar

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

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

Solidarity protests spread across states

• Kerala: Candlelight vigils and student solidarity gatherings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Himachal Pradesh: Government joins protest demanding accountability

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

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

• Punjab and Haryana: Opposition protests and preventive detentions

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

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

• Karnataka and other southern states: Political mobilisation expands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detailed report may be read here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition joins protests as Parliament witnesses disruption

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

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

International solidarity emerges as protests draw attention beyond India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mumbai Police impose prohibitory orders amid protests

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

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

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

Chaityabhoomi protests: Hundreds detained, FIRs registered

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

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

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

Image: freepressjournal.in

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

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

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

FIRs against protesters and organisers

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

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

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

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

Image: indianexpress.com

Shivaji Park protest and political participation

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

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

Notices issued to some detainees, while others await intimation

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

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

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

Claims of suppression and the constitutional question

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

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

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

Political protests over police action

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

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

A widening conflict over protest rights

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

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

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

Related:

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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