The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC), tasked with examining the violence that broke out during the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)-led student protests at Jantar Mantar in July, to submit its first fact-finding report within one month.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the material submitted by petitioners on behalf of victims must also be examined.
"We have clarified that information and material submitted by parties, including material submitted on behalf of victims, will be examined and considered. There are two issues which have been prioritised, besides other issues referred to the committee. The committee need not wait indefinitely," it added.
On the basis of material already received, it should call for responses from whoever is required to respond and submit its first report within one month, the Court directed.
"It may submit an interim report on the two priority issues. We would like the committee to start submitting its fact-finding reports. Unless there is something extraordinary requiring confidentiality, we would ordinarily like the relevant contents of those reports to be shared," the bench further said.
The five-member HPEC was constituted by the Court on August 18.
The Committee, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy has been tasked with examining allegations of excessive police force against protestors at Jantar Mantar and elsewhere, and of violence against security personnel in protests that took place in July.
The Court had asked the HPEC to first examine the use of pellet guns, targeted violence and harassment of female protestors, and excessive violence and destruction of property on either side.
Today, Senior Advocate N Hariharan said it was not known what progress the committee had made since August.
"Our petition concerns the brutalities allegedly committed during the protests. That is the principal issue requiring consideration. We do not know whether any departmental inquiry has been initiated or whether any case has been registered concerning what happened. That is the issue which this Court should consider first," Hariharan said.
The Court was told the committee's report may have been filed in a sealed cover. In this regard, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted,
"The report can be considered with the assistance of the amicus and the committee. Otherwise, everyone will start debating the report on television channels. I am not saying anything about the lawyers. Its sanctity must be maintained."
However, Hariharan said the report must be supplied to the petitioners, arguing that the Court previously has deprecated the practice of reports being submitted in sealed covers.
CJI Kant said that the Court will examine the report on its own and then formulate issues on which petitioners can assist the bench.
"The only difference is that this is not a sealed-cover procedure adopted by the government or one of its agencies. This is a High-Powered Committee constituted by this Court."
CJI Kant noted that despite efforts made by the panel, only a few complaints were received on the designated portal launched three weeks ago.
"Our first concern is that complainants should submit their complaints. A portal has been created. A dedicated email address has also been provided. The committee can then examine those complaints. The committee held a sitting at its office on October 26. Publicity was given through print and electronic media. Notices were sent to protesters who had filed complaints. However, only one complainant appeared on October 29, 2026, and submitted an affidavit," the Court said.
It added that some police personnel have also appeared before the committee.
"The committee will now commence examination of the complaints and proceed towards fact-finding," the Court said.
Advocate Vrinda Grover said they had made a representation even before the launch of the portal and later submitted another portal in accordance with the procedure as well. She also said that not a single FIR had been registered on the representations.
CJI Kant said these representations can be brought on record before the Court so that they can formally be treated as complaints.
"If anything stated in the report is factually incorrect, place the documents on record demonstrating that. If the position recorded is correct, persons who wish to pursue their complaints should come forward and submit affidavits. The process is open," the Court added.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said the petitions filed before this Court already contain detailed allegations of violations. Some of that material can be shared directly with the committee instead of requiring every affected individual to submit it separately, he added.
He also said that the committee appears to be considering only accounts submitted directly by victims, and not material forwarded by other persons, including petitioners before the Court.
CJI Kant said the Court will issue a clarification for the implementation of the suggestion.
"We can clarify in the order that counsel are permitted to forward soft copies of the petitions and supporting material, including videos, to the committee."
CJI Kant asked petitioners to motivate the complainants to come forward.
"The victims themselves have not appeared before the committee. You are acting on their behalf, which is permissible. In that situation, you should request the committee to summon the victims concerned," the Court added.
The Court also said that there may be some difference between the allegations made in the petitions and the factual position.
"The Court can verify through the amicus whether the complainant is represented by counsel or has approached the committee personally. We will see what the committee has done," the bench noted.
It was also alleged before the Court that no disciplinary action had been initiated against police officers accused of committing excesses during the protest.
While CJI Kant said the Court would wait for a report from the panel, Justice Bagchi said,
"What we said was that constitution of the committee should not be understood as preventing police authorities or their superiors from taking action if they find that someone deployed at the site committed a transgression."
Solicitor General said police should not be demoralised for using reasonable force.
"Where an unlawful assembly takes place and the police use reasonable force, officers should not be demoralised through demands for suspension or transfer. If the committee reaches a conclusion, we will certainly act."
The matter will be heard next on December 2.
The Court has been hearing a batch of petitions concerning police brutality during protests at Jantar Mantar and in Bihar and other parts of the country over alleged paper leaks of NEET and other examinations.
Some petitions also seek action against protesters accused of assaulting police personnel during the demonstrations.
The protests had begun in June on a call by the CJP against repeated question paper leaks. They demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who has since resigned from the position.
The protests gained momentum after climate activist Sonam Wangchuk joined and started a hunger strike in solidarity. Wangchuk was later removed from the protest site and taken to a hospital by the Delhi Police, citing his worsening health condition. He ended his 26-day hunger strike at Medanta Hospital late on July 23.
Meanwhile, Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF) reportedly restored to lathi charge, teargas shelling and the use of pellet guns to stop the CJP protestors on a "Sansad Chalo" march to the Parliament on July 20.
Pradhan eventually tendered his resignation as minister on July 25 and the protests were called off.