Supreme Court seeks suggestions on ambit of high-powered committee to investigate police excesses during NEET protests | LIVE

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

RAF personnel flag march during the Cockroach Janta Party protest near Parliament House, in New Delhi on July 20, 2026. | Photo Credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar

T he Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 18, 2026) is hearing pleas alleging police excesses on students during the recent protests in Delhi against NEET paper leak.

The Supreme Court had previously indicated on Tuesday (July 28, 2026) indicated that it would consider constituting a high-powered investigation team to conduct a “thorough, fair and independent” inquiry into allegations of police excesses during the recent student protests in Delhi and several States.

The CJI suggests, without naming, former senior police officers for the high-powered committee. Senior advocate Sankaranarayanan proposes including a former Attorney General in the committee, while Advocate Grover suggests including a woman.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan supports Advocate Grover’s submission, stating that since the issues also concern women, there should be a woman on the committee.

He says that the issue regarding the use of facial recognition systems by the police during the protests needs to be heard separately.

Supreme Court says that it will frame the issues that the proposed committee will examine, which will include matters the committee should address urgently. CJI urges Sankaranarayanan and other lawyers to submit their suggestions, noting that the order will be released tomorrow (August 19, 2026).

SG Mehta argues that the court should not pass any ad hoc orders and should instead leave the committee to hear all the issues and decide.

In response, the CJI says that the committee will also be permitted to seek the assistance of domain experts.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan points out that the Delhi Police affidavit does not mention any internal or administrative action taken against the police personnel allegedly responsible for sexual molestation and deliberate violence.

Advocate Rizwain Ahmed questions why the organisers of the protests are not being held accountable.

Advocate Vrinda Grover says an application seeking compensation for the victims of pellet-gun firing has been filed.

Advocate Rizwain Ahmed argues that the students must first express remorse. However, the CJI disagrees, saying that the future of the students and the expectations of their parents must be taken into consideration, and the confidence of the students must be restored.