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.

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

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

Visuals from the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar.

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

— Velox India (@VeloxIndia) July 20, 2026

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

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

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

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

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

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

And it has finally begun.

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

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) July 20, 2026

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

— ANI (@ANI) July 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Origins: A movement born out of the NEET crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sonam Wangchuk enters the movement

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

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

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

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

Three Weeks of Escalation: From local protest to national attention

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

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

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

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

The State’s Intervention: From silence to medical enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

The July 18: Removal from Jantar Mantar

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

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

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

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

The dispute therefore brought three constitutional guarantees into direct tension:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complete order may be viewed here:

July 20: The protest moves towards parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) July 20, 2026

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

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

— The Wire (@thewire_in) July 20, 2026

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

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

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

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

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 20, 2026

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

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

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

PUBLIC ADVISORY

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

Prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS…

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 20: Negotiations and government outreach

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

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

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

Solidarity across India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support gatherings were also reported from:

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

July 20: Updates on the hunger strikes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: From examination failure to a crisis of accountability

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 19, 2026

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

— KALLURI (@I_KALLURI) July 19, 2026

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

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

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

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

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) July 19, 2026

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

A hunger strike met with detention instead of dialogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Safety” argument versus allegations of forced removal

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

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

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

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

Compensation allegations demand independent scrutiny

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

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

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

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

The State’s defence: protesters are not genuine beneficiaries

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

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

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

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

Tribal rights and the question of consent

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

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

Environmental costs ignored in the development narrative

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitutional boundaries and the Election Commission’s role

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

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

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

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

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

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

The scale of the appellate backlog in West Bengal

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

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

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

Denial of welfare benefits and civil rights

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

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

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

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

The counsel’s argument on unanticipated consequences

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

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

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

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

Transparency and accountability demands for appellate tribunals

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

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

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

Proposed reforms to the appeal mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

Greater disclosure of SIR data

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

The Stolen Franchise: Why the Election Commission cannot escape accountability

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