Supreme Court Seeks Responses From Seven States Over NEET Protest Police Action The Supreme Court has issued notices to Delhi and six other states regarding the police action during NEET-UG protests. The court ordered the preservation of all CCTV footage and scheduled the next hearing for August 3. The Supreme Court heard a crucial matter concerning the protests against alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG examination and the subsequent police action. Taking a firm stance on the issue, the apex bench issued notices to the governments of Delhi, Bihar, Maharashtra, Assam, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Kerala, directing them to submit their official responses. The episode has drawn widespread attention from both academic and administrative circles as students took to the streets to voice their grievances, leading to intense confrontations with law enforcement. The special bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana presided over the proceedings. During the hearing, the bench issued strict directives instructing all relevant authorities to immediately secure all CCTV footage from the incident sites to prevent any tampering with crucial evidence. Furthermore, the court clarified that individuals who did not have any prior criminal cases registered against them, but were booked during the course of the protests, will not face any immediate coercive action. Petitioners before the court put forward several significant demands, including strict disciplinary action against errant police personnel, a court-monitored probe by a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, and the formulation of uniform nationwide guidelines to govern peaceful protests in the future. During the proceedings, Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that the demonstrations staged by the students were entirely peaceful, with participants keeping their demands well within constitutional boundaries. He highlighted that such public movements often attract uninvited guests who arrive with their own hidden agendas and gradually infiltrate the core of the protests. Emphasizing that demonstrations are a natural facet of any functioning democracy, the Chief Justice noted that the time has arrived to clearly determine the specific circumstances and methods under which crowd control measures such as tear gas should be deployed by authorities. He also appealed to all involved parties to contribute constructive and practical suggestions toward this end. Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopalakrishna Shankar Narayan brought a serious incident to the attention of the court, stating that an Assistant Sub-Inspector was seen breaking car windows himself, with video evidence currently existing to support the claim. He argued that the police acted without restraint and asserted that unless accountability is firmly established, such incidents will continue to recur. He suggested the inclusion of a former Supreme Court judge in the proposed SIT. Responding to these arguments, Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that the court's prima facie view is that the case warrants an independent, fair, and transparent investigation. The bench firmly asserted that anyone who violated the law must face action, and noted that an inquiry serves no purpose if accountability is not fixed. The court deferred its decision regarding the exact composition and structure of the SIT to a later stage. Advancing further arguments, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat drew the court's attention to another sensitive issue, stating that despite the Bihar government announcing the withdrawal of FIRs, more than 150 minors remain in police custody. He leveled serious allegations that several children were detained for over 48 hours and produced before a magistrate nearly 40 hours after being taken into custody. He pointed out that among those detained is a child aged only 13, demanding their immediate release. Conversely, presenting the government's stance, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that 250 police personnel sustained injuries during the clashes, with many requiring stitches for their wounds. He maintained that the absolute truth must come to light, as it appears unlikely that students would engage in such acts of violence independently. According to him, anti-social elements and uninvited guests infiltrated the gathering. He claimed that the government possesses data indicating the presence of individuals accused of grave offenses such as murder, rape, and NDPS violations among the crowd. At the same time, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta conceded that if excessive force was indeed used against students, it represents a matter of grave concern and the government stands firmly with the students. He added, however, that actions must not be taken that would undermine the morale of the police force. He reiterated the government's support for an independent probe, emphasizing that the final truth will emerge only after the investigation concludes. During the session, Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised the case of Junaid Malik, an individual who was distributing food during the protests. He alleged that police detained Malik and took him to Mussoorie, subjecting his family to continuous harassment. Recognizing the gravity of the matter, the Supreme Court scheduled the next hearing for August 3. What this means for you • Across India: The proceedings could establish stricter national legal standards for police accountability and crowd management during student demonstrations. • In Delhi: Local law enforcement and protest monitoring will be subject to heightened judicial oversight and mandatory preservation of CCTV evidence. Questions & Answers 1. Which states were issued notices by the Supreme Court regarding the NEET protests? The Supreme Court issued notices to the governments of Delhi, Bihar, Maharashtra, Assam, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Kerala. 2. What instructions did the court give regarding CCTV footage? The court directed all relevant authorities to secure all CCTV footage from the incident sites. 3. What information did Solicitor General Tushar Mehta provide regarding injuries? Tushar Mehta informed the court that 250 police personnel were injured during the incident, with many requiring stitches. 4. When is the next hearing scheduled for this case? The Supreme Court scheduled the next hearing for the case on August 3. https://trendkia.com/en/national/neet-protest-police-action-supreme-court-delhi-seven-states-11411 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.