Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Independent Probe into Alleged Police Action During CJP Protest in Delhi
The Supreme Court of India on October 9, 2026, dismissed a petition seeking an independent and fair investigation into the alleged police action during protests organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar in July. The demonstrations were held against the alleged NEET-UG paper leak and concerns over irregularities in the examination system.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declined to entertain the petition filed by L. Ramanathan. The petitioner had sought directions to the Centre, the Delhi government and the police to ensure an independent investigation into the cases connected with the protests.
The petition raised questions about police powers, investigative independence and the handling of cases registered following the demonstrations. The petitioner argued that police investigations should be conducted fairly and in accordance with the law, without improper interference.
During the hearing, the bench observed that the petition effectively sought to challenge the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to quash certain FIRs arising from the protests. The court had exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to bring the specified criminal proceedings to an end.
Chief Justice Surya Kant explained that the earlier decision had taken into account the circumstances of the young students involved and the potential consequences of prolonged criminal proceedings for them and their families. The bench also referred to the distinction between student protesters and individuals with serious criminal backgrounds.
The July demonstrations at Jantar Mantar were part of a wider protest campaign concerning the alleged NEET paper leak and demands for accountability in the examination system. The protests led to the registration of multiple FIRs and subsequent legal proceedings concerning the handling of the cases.
By dismissing the fresh petition, the Supreme Court declined to reopen the matter through the relief sought by the petitioner. The ruling leaves the court’s earlier order concerning the specified FIRs in place.
The decision highlights the legal balance between police authority to investigate alleged offences, judicial oversight and the constitutional right to peaceful assembly. While citizens have the right to protest, the exercise of that right remains subject to lawful restrictions. The dismissal of the petition, however, should not by itself be interpreted as a judicial finding that every allegation concerning police conduct during the demonstrations was either proved or disproved.
