Setting clear legal boundaries for the High-Powered Inquiry Committee established to investigate the NEET-UG paper leak demonstrations, the Supreme Court has ruled that the panel lacks the jurisdiction to direct the registration of FIRs or initiate criminal probes. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant emphasized that the constitutional authority to order criminal investigations rests strictly with the top court. Furthermore, the court firmly rejected pleas seeking a modification or reconstitution of the five-member panel.
Limits of Committee Mandate and Supreme Court Oversight
The bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, delineated the functional boundaries of the inquiry committee during the hearing. The court clarified that the panel, headed by former Supreme Court judge R. Subhash Reddy, is tasked solely with conducting an independent probe into the conflicting claims, identifying victims, and submitting recommendations to the court. The final determination on initiating criminal prosecution remains under the exclusive purview of the apex court.
Highlighting the structural framework, the bench stated that the committee will operate under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court. Should any operational hurdles arise during the inquiry, the panel has been empowered to seek directions directly from the bench. Additionally, the committee was granted permission to appoint an amicus curiae or legal counsel to represent its findings before the Supreme Court.
Public Outreach, Witness Protection, and Initial Meeting Schedule
To ensure a comprehensive and accessible inquiry process, the Supreme Court authorized the committee to issue public notices and invite suggestions, representations, or objections from citizens. Recognizing the delicate nature of the matter, the court permitted the establishment of a dedicated helpline and specialized mechanisms for sensitive witnesses who may be unable or reluctant to physically appear before the panel.
Representing the Union Government and Delhi Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the high-powered inquiry panel is scheduled to convene its initial meeting on September 15, 2026.
Rejection of Reconstitution Demands and Legal Submissions
During arguments, senior advocates representing various petitioners, including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, N. Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy, Prashant Bhushan, and Vrinda Grover, raised concerns regarding the panel's structure. The counsel highlighted issues such as witness accessibility, interim financial compensation, allegations surrounding the deployment of pellet guns, and data collection of demonstrators by private entities associated with Delhi Police.
Addressing these submissions, the bench declined to modify the composition of the committee, stating that an order passed directly by the court would not be altered before the panel initiates its mandated work. However, the court permitted all parties to place their evidence, suggestions, and grievances directly before the committee, adding that parties retain the liberty to approach the court if further clarifications become necessary as the probe advances.
Background of Protests and Constitutional Intervention under Article 142
The core dispute originates from demonstrations organized in July under the banner of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) regarding alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG examinations. The protest at Jantar Mantar escalated into clashes during a march toward Parliament, with security forces and demonstrators trading accusations of physical assault, excessive force, and destruction of public property.
Earlier, on September 1, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to halt all ongoing criminal proceedings tied to the demonstrations held between July 20 and July 25. The court stayed further action on existing FIRs and prohibited the filing of fresh FIRs concerning those events. The five-member inquiry committee was subsequently instituted to evaluate documentary evidence, hear affected parties, and accept confidential or anonymous complaints to safeguard sensitive witnesses.
