‘We Stand With Students of India’, Say 100 Writers, Artistes; Seek Probe Into Use of Police Force
New Delhi: About a 100 writers and artistes of India have endorsed a statement expressing their “unwavering solidarity” with students across the country, who are protesting against an unfair examination system and for reforms in the education system. They are demanding government accountability and resignation if Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
The statement, signed by eminent writers and artistes, such as K Satchidandan, Banu Mushtaq, Mallika Sarabhai, Mahesh Elkunchwar, Geetanjali Shree among others, has called of a dialogue with the protesting students as well as demanded an impartial inquiry into the incidents of violence against students and unwarranted use of force during police action on July 20, in and around the student protest site in Jantar Mantar, New Delhi.
Read the full statement below:
Statement by Writers and Artists of India
We, the undersigned writers, and artists of India, express our unwavering solidarity with the students across the country who are demanding transparency, accountability, and comprehensive reforms in the conduct of public examinations. The repeated instances of question paper leaks and other irregularities have gravely questioned the integrity of public institutions.
We are deeply disturbed by the reports of use of force against students engaged in peaceful democratic protest in different parts of the country, including at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. In a constitutional democracy, the legitimate concerns of young citizens must be met with dialogue and justice, not by violence and intimidation.
We call upon the Government of India and the concerned State Governments to take swift and stringent action against all those responsible for examination paper leaks and related malpractice.
We also demand an honest dialogue with the students and an impartial inquiry into the incidents of violence against students and unwarranted use of force.
We stand with the students of India in their peaceful struggle for justice, accountability, and a trustworthy examination system.
We urge fellow writers, artists and thinkers from all parts of the country to come out in support of the demands of students to decide the future of our democracy.
We the undermentioned writers and artists give our consent to above statement
K. Satchidanandan, Ashok Vajpeyi, Damodar Mauzo, Mahesh Elkunchwar, Banu Mushtaq, Mallika Sarabhai, Bhalachandra Nemade, Kanji Patel, Vasant Abaji Dahake, A.J. Thomas, Arun Kamal, Chandrakant Patil, Githa Hariharan, Peggy Mohan, Rajesh Joshi, Gitanjali Shree, Prafull Shiledar, Kamalakar Bhatt, Anwar Ali, Anamika, Ranganath Pathare, Prabodh Parikh, Kamal Vora, Atul Dodiya, Udayan Vajpeyi, Swati Joshi, Neela Adarkar, Sanjukta Wagh, Rimli Bhattacharya, Amrut Gangar, Ajay Rawl, Shirin Gandhi, Raynuka Nidagundi, Anju Dodiya, Varjesh Solanki, Deepak Rawal, Chirantana Bhatt, Harish Minashru, Kumar Ambuj, Jivan Singh, Premchand Gandhi, Hemendra Chandaliya, Prabal Kumar Basu, Amar Mitra, Bikash Roy Debbarma, Vandana Tete, Vahru Sonvane, Pradnya Daya Pawar, Joram Yalam, Nilim Kumar, Snehlata Negi, Santanu Sarma, Atul Pethe, Rajan Gavs, Pravin Bandekar, Satpal Bhikhi, Heera Meena, Pravin Pandya, Bakul Tailor, B.Rajeevan, Savithri Rajeevan, J. Devika, Ramesh Karthik Naik, Hemant Divate, P. Raman, P.N. Gopikrishnan, P.P. Ramchandran, Ishan Marvel, Kedarnath Mishra, Parijat Pandya, Ranjana Argade, Angshuman Kar, Rita Kothari, Pratibha Nandakumar, Swapnamoy Chakraborty, Joseph S., Prabha Majumdar, Sucharita Dutta-Asane, Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, Meena Kandasamy, Parthiv Shah, K.R. Tony, Rafiq Ahmed, Rahamat Tarikere, Rajendra Chenni, Sudhir Chandra, Ranjit Hoskote, Sanjeev Khandekar, Ruchir Joshi, Manisha Joshi, Monika Biswas, Moushumi Bhoumik, Ayesha Agrawal, Danish Husain, Mamata Sagar, Mehul Devkala, Gopika Jadeja, Umesh Solanki, Devanooru Mahadeva, Paranjoy Guha-Thakurta.
Crackdown on Students: ‘Anti-Democratic, Contrary to Constitution’, Says Former Allahabad HC Chief Justice
Justice Mathur noted that the government’s response to the ongoing student protests amounted to repression rather than democratic engagement, and called on the government to treat criticism as central to governance..jpg)
Former chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, Govind Mathur, shared his views on the recent crackdown on student protesters with The Leaflet, marking his first comments on the issue. Various bodies, including the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, have already condemned the police action against the protesters. The full text of his message is reproduced below.
“The Constitution of India envisions a system of governance in which the liberty, equality, justice, and dignity of every citizen remain inviolable. Democracy does not merely mean holding elections every five years; it also requires that citizens’ dissent be heard with respect, that the right to peaceful protest be protected, and that the government remain accountable to the people.
The recent attempts to suppress protest and dissent through harsh measures are contrary to these fundamental democratic principles. When people express concerns about inflation, unemployment, corruption, education, healthcare, or economic policies, it is the duty of a democratic government to engage in dialogue and address those concerns—not to respond with coercion and repression.
Democracy does not merely mean holding elections every five years; it also requires that citizens’ dissent be heard with respect, that the right to peaceful protest be protected, and that the government remain accountable to the people.
Today, students across the country are raising their voices against unemployment and irregularities in competitive examinations. Various sections of society are expressing serious concerns regarding corruption, economic inequality, and the functioning of public institutions. Such expressions of public concern are a natural feature of any democratic society. It is deeply troubling that the response of the government has increasingly been one of repression and misinformation rather than meaningful engagement.
If peaceful protesters, including students and ordinary citizens, are subjected to unnecessary use of force, mass arrests, or if dissent is viewed merely as a law-and-order problem, it raises serious questions about the health of our democratic values. Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees citizens the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully. It is unfortunate that the government appears unable to appreciate the true spirit of these constitutional guarantees. The events witnessed in recent days in Delhi and in other parts of the country, where protesters were dealt with in this manner, are both anti-democratic and contrary to the Constitution.
It is deeply troubling that the response of the government has increasingly been one of repression and misinformation rather than meaningful engagement.
It is the responsibility of every government to regard criticism as an integral part of the democratic process, to engage in constructive dialogue with its citizens, and to implement the reforms that the situation demands.”
Courtesy: The Leaflet
.jpg)
Former chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, Govind Mathur, shared his views on the recent crackdown on student protesters with The Leaflet, marking his first comments on the issue. Various bodies, including the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, have already condemned the police action against the protesters. The full text of his message is reproduced below.
“The Constitution of India envisions a system of governance in which the liberty, equality, justice, and dignity of every citizen remain inviolable. Democracy does not merely mean holding elections every five years; it also requires that citizens’ dissent be heard with respect, that the right to peaceful protest be protected, and that the government remain accountable to the people.
The recent attempts to suppress protest and dissent through harsh measures are contrary to these fundamental democratic principles. When people express concerns about inflation, unemployment, corruption, education, healthcare, or economic policies, it is the duty of a democratic government to engage in dialogue and address those concerns—not to respond with coercion and repression.
Democracy does not merely mean holding elections every five years; it also requires that citizens’ dissent be heard with respect, that the right to peaceful protest be protected, and that the government remain accountable to the people.
Today, students across the country are raising their voices against unemployment and irregularities in competitive examinations. Various sections of society are expressing serious concerns regarding corruption, economic inequality, and the functioning of public institutions. Such expressions of public concern are a natural feature of any democratic society. It is deeply troubling that the response of the government has increasingly been one of repression and misinformation rather than meaningful engagement.
If peaceful protesters, including students and ordinary citizens, are subjected to unnecessary use of force, mass arrests, or if dissent is viewed merely as a law-and-order problem, it raises serious questions about the health of our democratic values. Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees citizens the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully. It is unfortunate that the government appears unable to appreciate the true spirit of these constitutional guarantees. The events witnessed in recent days in Delhi and in other parts of the country, where protesters were dealt with in this manner, are both anti-democratic and contrary to the Constitution.
It is deeply troubling that the response of the government has increasingly been one of repression and misinformation rather than meaningful engagement.
It is the responsibility of every government to regard criticism as an integral part of the democratic process, to engage in constructive dialogue with its citizens, and to implement the reforms that the situation demands.”
Courtesy: The Leaflet
Bihar’s First BJP Govt Releases Photos, Brands Youth Protestors as ‘Criminals’
%20(1).jpg)
Image Courtesy: AISA Bihar
Patna: Amid widespread protests by youths and students in Bihar against examination paper leaks and the demand for resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, for the state police, the protestors seem like criminals.
The police have released photos of 270 protesters and have announced rewards to identify each of them, branding them like criminals. FIRs have been registered against about 2,000 protesters.
This is probably the first such move in post Independent India wherein the protesters, mostly Gen Z, are being branded as criminals, miscreants and anti-social elements for their alleged involvement in violence during the by and large peaceful protest.
According to police sources, the photos are of protestors allegedly involved in violence and damage to public property in different districts, whom police describe as miscreants. Of the 270 photos released for identification, 86 are in Katihar district, 60 in Patna, 59 in Darbhanga,30 in Begusarai,27 in Munger and eight in Muzaffarpur.
“Police have released photos of many youths and students who were seen standing either alone or silently, walking on the roads and chatting with each other. They were branded miscreants. Is this how police are dealing with protestors?” Santosh Arya, said a youth CPI(ML) leader.
A protester Suvendu Kumar, who is a Gen Z, expressed his anger over police actions against protestors and the release of their photos for public identification. “Are we (protesters) criminals or have we violated the Constitution by staging a protest, raising genuine voices and demanding the resignation of Pradhan? Police have been doing all this to create panic and terror among protesters. But we will continue to protest,we are not afraid of anything”, he said.
This is evident, as Kantesh Mishra, police chief (SSP) of Muzaffarpur district, has announced a reward of Rs 10,000 for identification of eight (8) protestors whom he termed as “miscreants” who were allegedly involved in the “violent protest and damage of public properties.”
On Thursday evening hundreds of youths and students staged protests in the premises of district magistrate office and at different places and on roads in Muzaffarpur. Protesters and police clashed as well and police claimed that protesters damage public properties. Police have warned to imposed a fine and will recover the cost of damage from miscreants.
Although in the past three days, protests spread to over a dozen districts in the state, police resorted to lathicharge and tear gas in Patna, Katihar, Muzaffarpur, Darbhanga, Begusarai and opened fire in Jehanabad to disperse the protestors on Thursday. On Friday, too, protests were reported in several districts.
In Patna, police arrested 58 protestors and released photos of 60 alleged miscreants.
The protest march in Patna witnessed a large gathering of youths and students led by All India Students’ Association or AISA, the student body of CPI(ML), supported by other organisations. Police tried to stop protestors at different places which resulted in clashes leaving several protesters and police personnel injured. Lathicharge, water cannons, tear gas and barricades were used by police.
According to a senior police officer at police headquarters here, police have been instructed from the top to take strict action against protesters. The release of photos and a reward are part of a strategy to create a sense of fear among protestors and to crush them.
“This has never happened before, that police have released photos of protestors like criminals for their identification. We had actively participated in several andolans, agitations and protests but our photos were never released in public. This shows a different mindset of those heading the government”, said Satyanaratan Madan, who as a youth took part in the JP movement against the Emergency in the mid-70s.
Bihar first Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief minister Samrat Choudhary, who completed 100 days in office on July 24, is reportedly given a free hand to police to tackle the protestors and use force against them. He is well known for police encounters and bulldozer actions to replicate Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s governance model.
Left student organisations have called a Bihar Bandh on July 25 to protest against police action against protestors, including lathicharge, police firing and arrest. Police arrested dozens of members of AISA and CPI(ML) MLA Sandeep Saurav on Friday night, ahead of Saturday shutdown.
In Patna, security forces have been deployed all around include at all nook and corners, main roads and even schools, hospitals, railway stations. Drones are being used for surveillance of protestors.
Opposition MLAs have raised the issue of police action against protesting youth on Friday in the Bihar Assembly on the last day of the Monsoon session.
Opposition RJD,CPI(M),CPI,VIP have extended support to Bihar Bandh of AISA.
Reports coming from Muzaffarpur,Gaya,Bhojpur,Aurangabad,Bhagalpur,Katihar,Vaishali,Bhagalpur, Purnea, said the shutdown hit normal life. In Patna also protestors took to streets despite a crackdown against student leaders, with nearly a dozen of them arrested.
The BJP-led government has deployed 14 companies of para military forces, thousands of Bihar police and home guards.
Legal Fraternity Rallies Behind Student Protesters, Flay Police Action
.jpg)
The July 20 crackdown by the Delhi police and Rapid Action Force on the “Sansad Chalo” student-led march has triggered a strong (and much required) legal community responses to police action against protesters in recent years. What began as a student mobilisation demanding accountability over the NEET examination crisis has now become a larger constitutional confrontation over the State’s treatment of dissent.
Detailed may be read here, here, here and here.
Across the country, senior advocates, bar associations and hundreds of lawyers have condemned the alleged police violence against students, describing the crackdown as an assault on the fundamental freedoms of speech, assembly and democratic participation. More than 650 lawyers, along with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and Bombay Bar Association (BBA), have demanded accountability and an independent inquiry into allegations of disproportionate force.
The legal fraternity’s intervention is significant because the issue is not merely whether individual protesters were injured—it concerns whether the machinery of the State crossed constitutional limits while responding to a citizens’ movement. Allegations of lathi charges, use of force against women and minors, assault on journalists and lawyers, and the filing of criminal cases against protesters have raised serious questions about whether policing measures were aimed at maintaining public order or suppressing dissent.
The Delhi High Court’s order directing preservation of CCTV footage, videography, PCR records and other material connected with the incident marks an important judicial safeguard. By ensuring that evidence is not lost, altered or rendered unavailable, the Court has kept open the possibility of meaningful scrutiny of the allegations.
The Delhi Police has defended its actions by alleging violence and vandalism by sections of protesters. However, the broader constitutional question remains: when citizens—particularly students—take to the streets to demand accountability from institutions, can the State answer dissent with force?
Proceedings before the Delhi High Court on excessive force by Police
On July 22, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice on multiple PILs alleging excessive force by the Delhi Police, and directed preservation of all CCTV footage, videography, PCR logs and related records connected with the July 20 incident. The Union Government and Delhi Police have been granted four weeks to respond, reported LiveLaw.
The development is crucial because the allegations before the Court centre on the manner in which State force was deployed against protesters and whether established safeguards governing crowd control were followed. While the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the authenticity of the videos relied upon by the petitioners, the direction to preserve evidence marks an important judicial safeguard. In cases involving alleged police excesses, where the State machinery itself is accused of violating citizens’ rights, the availability of independent and contemporaneous records becomes essential for ensuring accountability.
Petitioners allege force far beyond constitutional limits: Appearing before the Court, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan argued that students assembled at Jantar Mantar were exercising rights protected under Articles 19 and 21 when police allegedly resorted to force that was not regulatory but punitive. He alleged that protesters were beaten with lathis fitted with nails, struck with electric batons, fired upon with pellets, and that more than ninety protesters sustained injuries. Equally significant were the procedural violations alleged before the Court.
According to the petitioners, police neither issued lawful proclamations directing dispersal nor followed the established legal sequence requiring warnings before force is used. Hariharan argued that any force deployed against assemblies must remain proportionate and strictly necessary—not punitive. He also sought an independent investigation, arguing that the Delhi Police could not credibly investigate allegations against its own officers.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that his legal team had examined approximately 130 videos documenting the crackdown. He alleged that several persons using force lacked identification badges and referred to footage purportedly showing Additional DCP Sandeep Lamba striking a woman protester. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, he argued that police had ignored settled constitutional safeguards governing dispersal of peaceful assemblies.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, argued that the march had been publicly announced well in advance and remained peaceful for nearly twenty days. Referring to Section 149 BNSS, he reminded the Court that the law itself obligates police officers to use “as little force” and inflict “as little injury” as possible while dispersing assemblies.
Police defend crackdown: Representing the Delhi Police and the Union Government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju defended the police response, arguing that the petitions presented a selective account of the July 20 events and relied heavily on social media videos whose authenticity, according to him, could not be presumed.
The ASG contended that the protests had escalated into violence, with sections of the crowd allegedly engaging in stone-pelting, vandalism and attacks on police personnel. He submitted that police officers had also sustained injuries and that public and private property had been damaged during the march. According to the police, the situation required intervention to restore public order.
Raju further argued that the petitioners had suppressed material facts and relied upon edited or potentially manipulated recordings circulating online. Describing the petitions as “publicity petitions” with alleged ulterior motives, he questioned whether such matters should be entertained under the Court’s public interest jurisdiction.
The ASG also challenged the maintainability of the PILs, arguing that persons claiming to have suffered injuries or assault should approach appropriate criminal remedies, including seeking directions from a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than directly approaching the High Court.
He further relied upon the imposition of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing that authorities had acted within the legal framework while managing the assembly.
Court refuses to reduce allegations to individual complaints: The Bench, however, appeared reluctant to accept that allegations involving widespread claims of police excess could simply be treated as individual grievances requiring separate FIRs. Responding to the State’s argument, the Court observed: “Is it a case of some isolated incidents? Perhaps not. If it was an unlawful assembly, as you say, there is law on how to deal with it. If these issues are raised in a PIL, how can you say every individual should lodge an FIR?”
The observation was significant because it recognised that allegations involving the conduct of State authorities affecting a large number of citizens may raise broader constitutional questions beyond individual criminal complaints.
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, where the Court held that allegations of excessive use of force by authorities resulting in violations of fundamental rights can be examined through public law remedies. The reference reinforced that judicial review of State action is not barred merely because individual criminal remedies may also exist.
It is crucial to highlight here that the matter has been listed for September 11—more than seven weeks after the July 20 crackdown. This issue does not concern a private dispute or a concluded incident; they involve allegations of State violence against citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest, questions of police accountability, and the legality of the force used by law-enforcement agencies. These are issues that go to the heart of constitutional governance and demand urgent judicial scrutiny. Every passing week without substantive consideration delays accountability, prolongs uncertainty for those allegedly injured, and weakens the constitutional promise of timely judicial protection against abuse of State power.
Before the evidence came judicial scrutiny
The judiciary’s initial response to the allegations also became the subject of public debate. Before the Delhi High Court agreed to hear the PILs and ordered preservation of crucial evidence, an earlier request for urgent listing before it had reportedly been met with the oral observation: “Don’t drag Court into all this.”
A day later, Advocate Narendra Mishra orally mentioned before the Supreme Court a letter representation addressed to the Chief Justice concerning the alleged police excesses during the July 20 protests. Responding to the mention, the Court reportedly observed: “Don’t waste our time, don’t waste your time.”
When counsel stated that he possessed videos documenting the police action, the Court is also reported to have remarked: “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch.”
Subsequently, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, on July 24, clarified in open court that media reports stating he had refused to list a petition were “completely false.” As reported by LiveLaw, the CJI explained that no writ petition had, in fact, been filed before the Supreme Court at that stage. What had been placed before him was only a letter representation sent by a lawyer, which, in the absence of a formally instituted petition, could not be treated as a writ petition. He criticised sections of the media for reporting otherwise and described such reporting as “irresponsible and reckless.”
That clarification is important. It corrects the record on the procedural position before the Supreme Court: the Court was not declining to list a duly instituted writ petition because none had yet been filed. However, the clarification does not entirely answer the broader constitutional concern that followed the oral exchange in open court. It is pertinent to highlight here that the CJI bench did not use its suo-moto powers to take cognizance of the case. The issue is not merely whether a petition had been formally instituted, but the language employed when serious allegations of State violence were first brought to the Court’s attention.
The allegations related to the use of force by State authorities against citizens exercising their fundamental rights, including claims of excessive police violence, injuries to protesters, assault on women and restrictions on the exercise of rights under Article 19. Even where a formal petition is absent, constitutional courts are often the first institutions to which citizens turn when alleging abuse of State power.
A constitutional court’s legitimacy rests not only on its eventual judgments but also on the confidence it inspires that allegations of fundamental rights violations—particularly against the State—will receive careful and impartial consideration. The concern raised by many observers was therefore not procedural alone, but institutional: whether the Court’s initial response reflected the constitutional seriousness of the allegations being placed before it.
That concern becomes even more pronounced when contrasted with the Delhi High Court’s subsequent order directing preservation of CCTV footage, videography and other contemporaneous records. The preservation of evidence does not validate the allegations, but it acknowledges that they are sufficiently serious to warrant judicial examination. If preserving evidence is necessary to determine whether constitutional limits were crossed, then the allegations themselves plainly merit careful scrutiny rather than summary dismissal.
Ultimately, the question extends beyond one oral exchange. It concerns the role of constitutional courts when allegations of excessive State force emerge. In a constitutional democracy, judicial engagement at such moments is not merely procedural—it is integral to maintaining public confidence that the exercise of State power will remain subject to constitutional accountability.
The Court also hears an NIA probe plea
In a parallel development, the Delhi High Court agreed to hear a separate PIL seeking transfer of the investigation into the protests to the National Investigation Agency. Filed by former Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha office-bearer Satish Kumar Aggarwal, the petition alleges that the movement was not genuinely student-led but part of a broader conspiracy involving foreign-funded organisations, opposition political leaders and anti-national elements, reported LiveLaw.
The petition questions the participation of Sonam Wangchuk, refers to his alleged international associations, names several opposition leaders and seeks transfer of all Delhi Police investigations to the NIA. On July 24, the said appeal as dismissed by the bench after holding that “We can’t decide on NIA investigation. It’s the Centre’s job.”
The bar stands with the students
Perhaps the most significant institutional response to the July 20 crackdown has come not from political parties or civil society organisations, but from India’s legal community. In an unusually broad and coordinated intervention, senior advocates, bar associations and hundreds of lawyers across the country have publicly questioned the legality and proportionality of the Delhi Police’s actions, framing the issue as one that strikes at the heart of India’s constitutional commitment to free expression, peaceful assembly and the rule of law.
In a joint public statement signed by more than 650 lawyers, including Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Raju Ramachandran, Chander Uday Singh, Sanjay Hegde, Huzefa Ahmadi, Rebecca M. John, Nandita Rao, Sanjay Parikh, Anjana Prakash, Jayant Bhushan, Shadan Farasat, Warisha Farasat, Sumita Hazarika, Sanjay Ghose and advocates Prashant Bhushan, Vrinda Grover, along with hundreds of other members of the Bar, the signatories condemned what they described as the use of violence against peaceful student protesters.
The statement characterised the police action as “an attack on the principles of free expression, human dignity and the right to dissent,” arguing that young people demanding accountability over repeated examination failures were met not with dialogue or democratic engagement but with force. Reports by LiveLaw stated that expressing solidarity with those allegedly “harmed, intimidated and traumatised” during the crackdown, the lawyers called for an impartial inquiry and urged constitutional authorities to ensure that those responsible for any excessive use of force are held accountable.
Importantly, the statement situates the issue within a broader constitutional framework rather than treating it as an isolated law-and-order incident. It reminds the State that peaceful protest is a democratic right, not a privilege granted at the discretion of the executive, and argues that Parliament must remain accessible to the voices of citizens, observing that it “is not an ivory tower that should be beyond the reach of its citizens.” The intervention reflects a rare consensus across different ideological and professional strands of the legal community that allegations of police brutality against peaceful demonstrators warrant independent scrutiny rather than dismissal.
The condemnation has not been confined to individual lawyers. Both the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have separately issued statements calling for an independent inquiry into allegations of excessive police force during the protests. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has also publicly criticised the police response and supported the demand for an impartial investigation, adding further weight to calls for accountability from within the legal profession.
Adding to these interventions, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who is also the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, addressed a detailed representation to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Union Home Ministry, seeking a time-bound judicial inquiry headed by a sitting or former Supreme Court judge into the police action. Singh alleged that the use of force extended beyond protesters to lawyers, journalists, medical volunteers, women and minors. Referring to reports published by The Wire, Newslaundry, Scroll and independent journalists, he argued that the police action appeared to violate the principles governing crowd control under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Delhi Police Manual, including allegations of lathi blows above the waist and officers operating without visible identification badges. He also sought the suspension of the Delhi Police Commissioner pending an independent inquiry, arguing that repeated examination failures had left students with few democratic avenues other than peaceful protest.
‘24 July Night – Create Jantar Mantar All Over India!’
Left organisations like CITU, AIKS, AIDWA, DYFI, SFI, call for nationwide night vigil to support students' struggle.
Image Courtesy: Deepak Jha
Left mass organisations, such as Centre of Indian Trade Unions, All India Kisan Sabha, All India Democratic Women’s Organisation, Democratic Youth Federation of India and Students Federation of India, have given a joint call to intensify the students’ struggle and hold “nationwide “night vigils” on July 24 to demand a fair education policy and exam system, as well as the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. All these organisations also plan to join ongoing protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, in solidarity with the protesting students on July 24.
“The Night Vigil will begin at 10.00 p.m. and continue throughout the night with torchlight rallies and cultural programmes. People of all spheres of society, including artists, intellectuals, writers, prominent personalities and social activists, are expected to participate. Banners and boards will be erected to display photographs of police brutality and collect public signatures. The struggle will also be widely covered on social media,” said a joint press statement.
Image Courtesy: Deepak Jha
Left mass organisations, such as Centre of Indian Trade Unions, All India Kisan Sabha, All India Democratic Women’s Organisation, Democratic Youth Federation of India and Students Federation of India, have given a joint call to intensify the students’ struggle and hold “nationwide “night vigils” on July 24 to demand a fair education policy and exam system, as well as the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. All these organisations also plan to join ongoing protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, in solidarity with the protesting students on July 24.
“The Night Vigil will begin at 10.00 p.m. and continue throughout the night with torchlight rallies and cultural programmes. People of all spheres of society, including artists, intellectuals, writers, prominent personalities and social activists, are expected to participate. Banners and boards will be erected to display photographs of police brutality and collect public signatures. The struggle will also be widely covered on social media,” said a joint press statement.
Read the full statement below:
Press Release
23 July 2026, New Delhi
“24 July 2026 Night – Create Jantar Mantar All Over India!”
“RAAT JAGO DESH JAGO” – NIGHT VIGIL to Support Students' Struggle
Call to Workers, Farmers, Agricultural Workers, Women and Youth to Attend En Masse in Solidarity
Intensify Struggles Across India till the Resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, Scrapping of the NTA, Withdrawal of NEP 2020, Compensation of Rs. 1 Crore to the Families of Suicide Victims, and the Release of Sonam Wangchuk
The five class and mass organisations - CITU, AIKS, AIAWU, AIDWA and DYFI -have called upon workers, farmers, agricultural workers, women and youth to rally in the RAAT JAGO DESH JAGO – Night Vigil called by the Students' Federation of India (SFI) on the night of 24 July, to create Jantar Mantar all over India.
This call supports the massive resistance struggle being waged by the students and youth of India, demanding the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, Union Minister of Education, the scrapping of the NTA, the withdrawal of NEP 2020, compensation of Rs. 1 crore to the families of the victims who died by suicide following the NEET paper leak, and the release of Sonam Wangchuk.
The Night Vigil will begin at 10.00 p.m. and continue throughout the night with torchlight rallies and cultural programmes. People of all spheres of society, including artists, intellectuals, writers, prominent personalities and social activists, are expected to participate. Banners and boards will be erected to display photographs of police brutality and collect public signatures. The struggle will also be widely covered on social media.
We salute the students and youth of the country for displaying enormous courage in successfully resisting the brutal onslaught by the Delhi Police operating under the direction of Mr. Amit Shah, while continuing their protest in a peaceful manner. We strongly condemn the atrocities committed against the protesters and the manhandling by the Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF). Shocking videos have emerged showing the police manhandling even women protesters, and reports have also emerged regarding the use of pellet guns. We demand the immediate suspension of all the police personnel involved and a judicial inquiry into these high-handed actions.
The students are fighting against the highly authoritarian, pro-corporate and communal education system established by the Modi regime, which has centralised the NEET examination system, undermined the federal principles of the Constitution and turned the NTA into a fountainhead of corruption.
It is shocking that the Union Minister of State for Education, Shri Sukanta Majumdar, informed the Rajya Sabha that the NTA has no permanent employees, while its revenue from student registration fees has more than doubled from Rs. 504 crore in 2018–19 to Rs. 1,116 crore in 2023–24. Reports indicate that since its establishment in 2017, question papers have been leaked in around 100 examinations and nearly 50 re-examinations have been conducted; all these have led to suicide-death of hundreds of students.
Therefore, the struggle to save education is a struggle to save India’s future generation and thus future of India. We call upon all democratic, secular and progressive sections to come forward in solidarity and ensure that this struggle succeeds and the Modi government is compelled to accept these just demands.
Issued By,
Elamaram Kareem – CITU
Vijoo Krishnan – AIKS
B. Venkat – AIAWU
Konanika Ghosh – AIDWA
HimaghnarajBhattacharyya – DYFI
Press Release
23 July 2026, New Delhi
“24 July 2026 Night – Create Jantar Mantar All Over India!”
“RAAT JAGO DESH JAGO” – NIGHT VIGIL to Support Students' Struggle
Call to Workers, Farmers, Agricultural Workers, Women and Youth to Attend En Masse in Solidarity
Intensify Struggles Across India till the Resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, Scrapping of the NTA, Withdrawal of NEP 2020, Compensation of Rs. 1 Crore to the Families of Suicide Victims, and the Release of Sonam Wangchuk
The five class and mass organisations - CITU, AIKS, AIAWU, AIDWA and DYFI -have called upon workers, farmers, agricultural workers, women and youth to rally in the RAAT JAGO DESH JAGO – Night Vigil called by the Students' Federation of India (SFI) on the night of 24 July, to create Jantar Mantar all over India.
This call supports the massive resistance struggle being waged by the students and youth of India, demanding the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, Union Minister of Education, the scrapping of the NTA, the withdrawal of NEP 2020, compensation of Rs. 1 crore to the families of the victims who died by suicide following the NEET paper leak, and the release of Sonam Wangchuk.
The Night Vigil will begin at 10.00 p.m. and continue throughout the night with torchlight rallies and cultural programmes. People of all spheres of society, including artists, intellectuals, writers, prominent personalities and social activists, are expected to participate. Banners and boards will be erected to display photographs of police brutality and collect public signatures. The struggle will also be widely covered on social media.
We salute the students and youth of the country for displaying enormous courage in successfully resisting the brutal onslaught by the Delhi Police operating under the direction of Mr. Amit Shah, while continuing their protest in a peaceful manner. We strongly condemn the atrocities committed against the protesters and the manhandling by the Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF). Shocking videos have emerged showing the police manhandling even women protesters, and reports have also emerged regarding the use of pellet guns. We demand the immediate suspension of all the police personnel involved and a judicial inquiry into these high-handed actions.
The students are fighting against the highly authoritarian, pro-corporate and communal education system established by the Modi regime, which has centralised the NEET examination system, undermined the federal principles of the Constitution and turned the NTA into a fountainhead of corruption.
It is shocking that the Union Minister of State for Education, Shri Sukanta Majumdar, informed the Rajya Sabha that the NTA has no permanent employees, while its revenue from student registration fees has more than doubled from Rs. 504 crore in 2018–19 to Rs. 1,116 crore in 2023–24. Reports indicate that since its establishment in 2017, question papers have been leaked in around 100 examinations and nearly 50 re-examinations have been conducted; all these have led to suicide-death of hundreds of students.
Therefore, the struggle to save education is a struggle to save India’s future generation and thus future of India. We call upon all democratic, secular and progressive sections to come forward in solidarity and ensure that this struggle succeeds and the Modi government is compelled to accept these just demands.
Issued By,
Elamaram Kareem – CITU
Vijoo Krishnan – AIKS
B. Venkat – AIAWU
Konanika Ghosh – AIDWA
HimaghnarajBhattacharyya – DYFI
The complete SCBA resolution may be read here.
The complete SCAORA resolution may be read here.
Bombay Bar Association: Democratic engagement cannot be replaced by force
The Bombay Bar Association (BBA) has also issued one of the most detailed institutional responses to the events of July 20, placing the controversy squarely within the framework of constitutional rights and democratic governance.
In a statement issued by its President, Senior Advocate Nitin Thakker, the Association described the issues raised by the protesting students concerning repeated examination irregularities and the future of India’s education system as matters of “immense public importance” with far-reaching consequences for the country’s youth.
Referring to videos and media reports of the police action, reported LiveLaw, the BBA observed that if reports depicting lathi charges, tear gas and the use of force against students were accurate, such conduct “cannot be countenanced in a society governed by the rule of law.” It stressed that law-enforcement authorities are expected to act with restraint, proportionality and due regard for the constitutional rights and dignity of every citizen, particularly when dealing with assemblies involving students exercising their democratic rights.
The Association reaffirmed that the right to peaceful assembly and peaceful dissent forms an integral part of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, observing that peaceful protest is “not merely a constitutional right but an essential feature of democratic governance.” At the same time, it unequivocally condemned any incidents of violence, vandalism or destruction of public or private property by any section of protesters, emphasising that constitutional freedoms must always be exercised peacefully and responsibly.
Notably, the BBA also expressed concern over what it described as intimidatory measures, including the use of force and the registration of criminal cases against protesters, cautioning that such responses risk undermining democratic participation rather than facilitating resolution of public grievances.
Calling for a constructive resolution, the Association urged both the Government and student representatives to move away from confrontation and towards “open, sincere and meaningful dialogue”, arguing that concerns affecting the educational futures of millions of students deserve substantive engagement rather than a purely law-and-order response. In doing so, the BBA reinforced an emerging consensus within the legal community that constitutional democracies are strengthened not by suppressing dissent, but by responding to it through accountability, dialogue and adherence to the rule of law.
The statement may be read below.
Bombay High Court lawyers challenge restrictions on protest, call police action unconstitutional
In a joint statement issued on July 24, 141 advocates practising before the Bombay High Court condemned the police action against protesters at Shivaji Park, Mumbai, and demanding the withdrawal of prohibitory orders restricting public assemblies. The advocates criticised the detention of protesters, including minors, who had gathered in support of the student-led agitation at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, over alleged examination irregularities and demanded greater accountability from authorities.
The lawyers said that the apparent basis for the police action was the absence of permission to hold a protest at Chaityabhoomi. However, they argued that the lack of prior permission cannot become a justification for suppressing the constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
The statement emphasised that the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution is not dependent upon the State’s discretion to permit dissent. “This freedom is rendered meaningless if under the guise of ‘regulation’ and ‘reasonable restrictions’, all protests are prohibited,” the advocates stated, reported Hindustan Times.
The signatories included several prominent senior advocates, including Janak Dwarkadas, Navroz Seervai, Gayatri Singh, Mihir Desai, Haresh Jagtiani, Yug Mohit Chaudhry and Dinyar Madon, who urged the Mumbai Police Commissioner to withdraw prohibitory orders issued under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
The lawyers also questioned the legality and transparency of the orders issued on July 3 and July 20, which imposed restrictions on assemblies, processions and the use of loudspeakers. They argued that orders affecting fundamental rights on such a wide scale require adequate publicity and cannot be invoked retrospectively to justify arrests or force against citizens.
“Prohibitory orders of such scale and import, which on their plain terms require to be given widespread publicity, cannot be passed surreptitiously and thereafter be pressed into service for strong armed action by law enforcement authorities,” the statement said as per the Hindustan Times report.
The advocates further raised concerns over what they described as a pattern of mass detentions and reliance on prohibitory powers without sufficient accountability. They argued that repeated use of restrictive orders creates a situation where citizens are forced to approach already burdened courts simply to challenge restrictions on basic democratic freedoms.
Referring to constitutional jurisprudence on assembly restrictions, the lawyers noted that authorities must demonstrate specific reasons for curtailing fundamental rights and must adopt the least restrictive measures necessary to address any genuine public order concerns. They argued that the police orders appeared to fall short of these requirements, thereby limiting meaningful judicial review.
The intervention adds another layer to the growing legal challenge against the manner in which authorities have responded to student protests. While legal bodies across the country have differed in their assessment of the protests, a significant section of the legal fraternity has focused on a common constitutional concern: that regulation of public assemblies cannot become a mechanism for preventing dissent or converting the requirement of permission into a blanket veto over the right to protest.
Lawyers gather at Supreme Court to read the Preamble in solidarity with students
In a symbolic assertion of constitutional values, a group of advocates assembled on the lawns of the Supreme Court on July 23 to collectively recite the Preamble to the Constitution under the banner “Save Democracy, Save Constitution”, expressing solidarity with students protesting the alleged NEET examination irregularities and condemning the authorities’ response to the demonstrations.
The gathering took place during the Court’s lunch recess and was led by Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Dr. S. Muralidhar, with Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, also in attendance. Several other senior members of the Bar, including Anand Grover, Anjana Prakash, Sanjay Ghose, Shadan Farasat, Arundhati Katju, Mahalakshmi Pavani, Nandita Rao, P.V. Surendranath, Manali Singhal, Sangeetha Bharti, P.V. Dinesh, Jayant Thakur and Advocate Vrinda Grover, participated alongside a large number of young lawyers. Many carried copies of the Constitution and the Indian tricolour while collectively reciting the Preamble, reaffirming the constitutional commitments to justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, reported LiveLaw.
Addressing the media after the event, Indira Jaising said the gathering was intended to stand “with the students” and to remind the judiciary of its constitutional responsibility to protect fundamental rights.
“We are here to stand with the students. We are here to stand on the side of justice… This concerns the rights of students, and it is the duty of lawyers to stand before the Supreme Court and demand justice for them. The role and function of the Supreme Court of India is to dispense justice.”
Bar Council of India breaks ranks, backs State narrative
In contrast to the widespread concern expressed by senior advocates and bar associations over the alleged use of excessive force against students, the Bar Council of India (BCI) adopted a markedly different position, issuing a public appeal that largely echoed the State’s narrative surrounding the protests.
In a press statement titled “An Appeal to the Intellectuals of the Country”, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra alleged that the student movement had been “hijacked” by anti-national and anti-social elements and claimed that foreign adversaries were attempting to destabilise India by exploiting students’ grievances. The statement urged lawyers, teachers, intellectuals and parents to intervene to prevent young people from being “misled” into participating in unlawful activities.
The BCI went considerably further than calling for peace or restraint. Without placing any supporting material in the public domain, it alleged that foreign governments, including Pakistan, China and Bangladesh, were orchestrating coordinated social media campaigns to mislead Indian youth. It also claimed that “experts in stone pelting” had been brought from Jammu and Kashmir and other States to attack police personnel, and referred to an unnamed political leader allegedly receiving foreign funds to destabilise the country.
The statement did not cite any official investigation, intelligence findings or judicial determination supporting these serious allegations. Instead, it presented them as part of a broader narrative portraying the protests as a coordinated conspiracy rather than a student movement arising from concerns over repeated examination irregularities.
Notably, the BCI’s intervention made no reference to the widely circulated videos of alleged police violence, the injuries reported by protesters, or the allegations of excessive force now under consideration before the Delhi High Court. Nor did it acknowledge the growing demands from large sections of the legal fraternity for an independent inquiry into police conduct.
This position stands in sharp contrast to statements issued by the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, the Bombay Bar Association, and more than 650 lawyers, all of whom have emphasised constitutional protections for peaceful protest while calling for accountability wherever excessive force is established.
The divergence is significant. As the statutory body responsible for regulating the legal profession, the BCI’s intervention carries institutional weight. Rather than focusing on the constitutional questions raised by allegations of police excess or emphasising the rule of law through an impartial inquiry, its statement primarily advances claims of foreign conspiracy and anti-national influence—claims that, at the time of its release, had not been substantiated through any publicly available investigation or judicial finding.
In doing so, the BCI has positioned itself apart from much of the organised legal community, which has framed the events of July 20 primarily as a question of constitutional accountability, police restraint and the protection of democratic dissent, rather than one of national security.
From a law-and-order issue to a constitutional reckoning
The developments following the July 20 crackdown have raised questions that extend beyond the immediate events of the protest. The legal proceedings now concern the manner in which State authorities exercise force against citizens and the safeguards that must govern such action.
The central issues before the courts are whether the police response was proportionate, whether established procedures for dispersing assemblies were followed, and whether allegations of excessive force by law-enforcement personnel require independent examination.
The proceedings also raise questions about accountability when allegations are made against State authorities themselves. If citizens allege violations of their fundamental rights during the exercise of democratic freedoms, the availability of an effective and impartial mechanism to examine those claims becomes essential.
The Delhi High Court’s direction to preserve CCTV footage, videography and other records ensures that the facts surrounding the incident can be assessed on the basis of evidence. The response from bar associations and hundreds of lawyers further reflects the broader concern that the handling of protests must remain within constitutional limits. At its core, the controversy is about the balance between maintaining public order and ensuring that the exercise of State power remains subject to constitutional scrutiny.
courtesy: Sabrang India
Youth Protest: A Brute Crackdown & Continuing Countrywide Response
After the July 20 police crackdown in Delhi, solidarity protests spread across India, matched with repression and police action in Bihar and Goa; these widespread protests reflected youth anger against the perpetual and repeated examination paper leaks over the past decade
.jpg)
Image Courtesy: Deepak Jha
The student-led protests against examination irregularities, alleged paper leaks and failures in India’s competitive examination system have moved beyond the streets of Delhi, transforming into a nationwide mobilisation marked by solidarity marches, sit-ins and demonstrations across several states.
The turning point came on July 20, when thousands of protesters attempting to march towards Parliament from the Jantar Mantar area were met with heavy police deployment, barricading, tear gas and allegations of baton charges. The crackdown, which left several protesters injured and resulted in multiple FIRs, intensified anger among students and civil society groups, triggering demonstrations in states including Bihar, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra and Kerala.
What began as a demand for accountability over examination failures has now expanded into a wider confrontation over the State’s response to peaceful protest, the right to dissent and the question of whether young citizens raising concerns about their future are being met with dialogue or coercion?
.jpg)
Image Courtesy: Deepak Jha
The student-led protests against examination irregularities, alleged paper leaks and failures in India’s competitive examination system have moved beyond the streets of Delhi, transforming into a nationwide mobilisation marked by solidarity marches, sit-ins and demonstrations across several states.
The turning point came on July 20, when thousands of protesters attempting to march towards Parliament from the Jantar Mantar area were met with heavy police deployment, barricading, tear gas and allegations of baton charges. The crackdown, which left several protesters injured and resulted in multiple FIRs, intensified anger among students and civil society groups, triggering demonstrations in states including Bihar, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra and Kerala.
What began as a demand for accountability over examination failures has now expanded into a wider confrontation over the State’s response to peaceful protest, the right to dissent and the question of whether young citizens raising concerns about their future are being met with dialogue or coercion?
July 20 Delhi crackdown becomes catalyst for nationwide mobilisation
The march towards Parliament on July 20 was organised after weeks of protests demanding accountability over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations. Thousands of students, young aspirants and supporters gathered in Delhi, seeking answers over examination failures and demanding accountability from the Union Education Ministry.
However, the march was stopped by security forces deployed across central Delhi. According to reports by The Indian Express, protesters faced multiple layers of barricading, tear gas deployment and police action as they attempted to move towards Parliament.
Detailed report may be read here.
The aftermath of the crackdown was visible across the protest site — injured protesters returned with bandaged heads and limbs, volunteers rebuilt damaged arrangements at Jantar Mantar, and several participants alleged excessive use of force. Speaking to The Indian Express, several protesters who returned to Jantar Mantar after hospitalisation described injuries sustained during the police action. Some alleged being beaten despite being unable to move, while others claimed that women protesters were also subjected to force.
The police, however, maintained that action was taken after “clashes broke out” and “protesters allegedly breached security arrangements”. Delhi Police subsequently registered multiple FIRs relating to allegations of violence, damage to public property and attacks on security personnel.
The march towards Parliament on July 20 was organised after weeks of protests demanding accountability over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations. Thousands of students, young aspirants and supporters gathered in Delhi, seeking answers over examination failures and demanding accountability from the Union Education Ministry.
However, the march was stopped by security forces deployed across central Delhi. According to reports by The Indian Express, protesters faced multiple layers of barricading, tear gas deployment and police action as they attempted to move towards Parliament.
Detailed report may be read here.
The aftermath of the crackdown was visible across the protest site — injured protesters returned with bandaged heads and limbs, volunteers rebuilt damaged arrangements at Jantar Mantar, and several participants alleged excessive use of force. Speaking to The Indian Express, several protesters who returned to Jantar Mantar after hospitalisation described injuries sustained during the police action. Some alleged being beaten despite being unable to move, while others claimed that women protesters were also subjected to force.
The police, however, maintained that action was taken after “clashes broke out” and “protesters allegedly breached security arrangements”. Delhi Police subsequently registered multiple FIRs relating to allegations of violence, damage to public property and attacks on security personnel.
Injured protesters return, movement expands at Jantar Mantar
Despite the crackdown, protesters returned to Jantar Mantar the following day. The Indian Express reported that several protesters who had spent the night in hospitals returned to the protest site, some walking with injuries and fresh bandages. Participants described their return as an act of resistance against what they viewed as an attempt to suppress their demands.
The protest site also became a space of collective support. Volunteers arranged food, water, medical assistance and other necessities. Poetry sessions, solidarity gatherings and community support activities continued through the night. The return of protesters after police action demonstrated that the crackdown had not ended the mobilisation. Instead, it became a rallying point for solidarity actions across India.
Despite the crackdown, protesters returned to Jantar Mantar the following day. The Indian Express reported that several protesters who had spent the night in hospitals returned to the protest site, some walking with injuries and fresh bandages. Participants described their return as an act of resistance against what they viewed as an attempt to suppress their demands.
The protest site also became a space of collective support. Volunteers arranged food, water, medical assistance and other necessities. Poetry sessions, solidarity gatherings and community support activities continued through the night. The return of protesters after police action demonstrated that the crackdown had not ended the mobilisation. Instead, it became a rallying point for solidarity actions across India.
Solidarity protests spread across states
Kerala: Candlelight vigils and student solidarity gatherings
Kerala witnessed solidarity demonstrations as the student movement in Delhi drew support from youth groups, civil society organisations and citizens across the state. In Kochi, people from different sections of society gathered for a midnight candlelight protest expressing solidarity with students protesting alleged examination irregularities and demanding accountability from the Union Education Ministry. Participants carried placards and candles, raising concerns over the impact of examination failures on students’ futures.
The gathering at Kochi reflected the broader character of the movement outside Delhi — unlike the large-scale marches in the national capital, several protests in Kerala took the form of peaceful vigils and symbolic demonstrations. Participants said they were joining the mobilisation because they could not travel to Delhi but wanted to register their opposition to alleged failures in the examination system.
Similar expressions of solidarity were reported from other parts of Kerala, including Thrissur, where activists issued statements criticising examination irregularities and the pressure faced by students. The groups argued that repeated disruptions in competitive examinations had created uncertainty among lakhs of aspirants and demanded accountability from those responsible.
Unlike Bihar and Delhi, where protesters faced direct police action, no major confrontation between police and protesters was reported in Kerala. The state’s experience therefore represented another dimension of the nationwide mobilisation — a movement sustained not only through street confrontations but also through public gatherings, vigils and expressions of civic solidarity.
- Ladakh: Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance extend solidarity with student protests
The student-led protests over examination irregularities and the police crackdown in Delhi also received support from Ladakh, with the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) expressing solidarity with the ongoing agitation. Leaders from the two major civil society groups of Ladakh visited the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest site at Jantar Mantar on July 21 and extended support to the students’ demand for accountability in the examination system.
According to a report by PTI carried by ThePrint, the delegation included KDA leaders Asgar Karbalai and Sajjad Kargili, along with Leh Apex Body representatives Chhering Dorjey Lakruk, Mohammadi Shafi, Ashraf Barcha and Dechan Chamba. They met CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and other protesters at the protest site, conveying solidarity over allegations of competitive examination irregularities and concerns regarding the future of students.
The KDA and LAB linked the students’ concerns with a wider question of institutional accountability. Speaking to PTI, KDA representative Sajjad Kargili said the alleged paper leak issue was a serious concern and that people in Ladakh shared the demand for a transparent and accountable education system.
- Bihar: Tear gas, water cannons and lathi-charge against student march
Bihar saw one of the strongest reactions from authorities after student groups organised demonstrations in solidarity with the Delhi protests. Students under the banner of the All India Students’ Association (AISA) organised a march towards the Raj Bhavan in Patna, demanding accountability over examination irregularities and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
According to reports by Times of India, the march was stopped near Gandhi Maidan and JP Golambar, where police deployed water cannons, tear gas shells and baton charges to disperse protesters.
The police action in Patna came shortly after the Delhi crackdown, with protesters also raising objections to the force used against demonstrators in the national capital. CPI (ML) Liberation MLA Sandeep Sourav, who participated in the protest, criticised the handling of the demonstrations and accused authorities of attempting to suppress student voices.
The events in Bihar reinforced concerns among student groups that peaceful demonstrations over public issues were increasingly being addressed through law-and-order measures rather than dialogue.
- Goa: Solidarity march followed by FIR over alleged procedural violations
Goa witnessed a solidarity march in Panaji supporting the student-led mobilisation. Hundreds of protesters gathered for a candlelight march from the Miramar area to Azad Maidan, organised by Goa-based NGO Uzwaad. Participants raised concerns over examination failures and demanded accountability for students affected by alleged paper leaks and cancellations.
Image: Instagram / goanewshub_gnh
However, police later registered an FIR against unknown protesters, alleging unlawful assembly and stating that the gathering had taken place without prior permission from authorities. The case reflected a recurring issue seen across several states — the use of procedural requirements governing public assemblies as the basis for legal action against demonstrations. While authorities have argued that permissions are necessary for maintaining public order, activists have questioned whether such provisions are being applied disproportionately against peaceful protests.
- Himachal Pradesh: Government joins protest demanding accountability
In Himachal Pradesh, the protest took the form of a political demonstration, with Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu joining Congress leaders in a sit-in outside the Governor’s residence. According to The Hindu, Congress leaders described the protest as an expression of solidarity with students and accused the Union government of failing to protect the interests of young aspirants facing examination-related uncertainty.
Sukhu demanded accountability from the central government and called for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. He also criticised the detention of opposition leaders during protests in Delhi, arguing that action against elected representatives and students raised concerns about democratic freedoms.
- Punjab and Haryana: Opposition protests and preventive detentions
In Punjab, Congress leaders held a demonstration outside Lok Bhawan in Chandigarh, expressing solidarity with protesting students. The protest was led by former minister Balbir Singh Sidhu and former Punjab Assembly Speaker Rana K.P. Singh, who criticised the handling of examination-related grievances and demanded accountability.
In Haryana, Congress leaders attempting to reach Haryana Lok Bhawan were detained by police. According to The Hindu, Haryana Congress leaders said they were protesting alongside students and demanding a transparent examination system and protection of democratic rights.
- Karnataka and other southern states: Political mobilisation expands
The protests also spread to Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana, where opposition parties and student groups organised demonstrations over examination irregularities.
Reports by Deccan Herald provided that Congress workers held protests in Bengaluru and other cities, with some leaders facing police detention during demonstrations.
In Tamil Nadu and Telangana, political parties also expressed support for student demands, arguing that repeated examination controversies required structural reforms rather than temporary responses.
- Maharashtra: Solidarity protests in Mumbai and Pune followed by FIRs against demonstrators
Maharashtra emerged as one of the key centres of solidarity mobilisation after the student protests in Delhi intensified following the July 20 police crackdown. Demonstrations were reported in Mumbai and Pune, with protesters demanding accountability over alleged examination irregularities and expressing support for the nationwide student movement.
In Mumbai, supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) held demonstrations at multiple locations, including Azad Maidan and Shivaji Park. The protests focused on demands for a transparent examination system and accountability over alleged failures in the conduct of competitive examinations. The Indian Express reported that Azad Maidan became a gathering point for citizens and activists supporting the CJP-led agitation, with protesters raising demands including the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET-UG paper leak controversy.
The mobilisation also saw participation from political leaders. Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray had earlier extended support to the agitation and demanded that the Union Education Minister step down, arguing that accountability was necessary following repeated concerns over examination management.
In Pune, thousands gathered near the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Garden outside the District Collectorate on July 20 in support of the movement. According to The Indian Express, the demonstration remained peaceful and concluded without any reported confrontation with police. Protesters raised concerns over the NEET-UG paper leak and other examination-related issues affecting students.
However, the State response in Mumbai quickly shifted towards legal action. The Mumbai Police registered an FIR against organisers of a Shivaji Park protest, citing that the demonstration had taken place without prior permission. The case was registered under provisions relating to unlawful assembly.
Subsequently, Mumbai Police registered multiple FIRs connected with CJP-related demonstrations across the city. Reports stated that cases were filed across several police stations, including against hundreds of protesters, on allegations of unauthorised gatherings and violations of law-and-order provisions.
The police action in Maharashtra reflected a wider pattern visible across states after the July 20 Delhi crackdown — while protesters sought to expand a public conversation on examination failures and institutional accountability, authorities relied heavily on restrictions, permission requirements and criminal proceedings to regulate demonstrations.
Detailed report may be read here.
Maharashtra chief minister, Devendra Fadnavis was reported ‘warning’ protesters who indulged in violence and ‘unlawful demonstrations. Independent media and social media reports from Mumbai, Pune and elsewhere in the state however showed clear “orders” to police authorities to criminalise democratic and peaceful actions, with FIRs and notices being issued across Maharashtra. Report may be read here.
Kerala: Candlelight vigils and student solidarity gatherings
Kerala witnessed solidarity demonstrations as the student movement in Delhi drew support from youth groups, civil society organisations and citizens across the state. In Kochi, people from different sections of society gathered for a midnight candlelight protest expressing solidarity with students protesting alleged examination irregularities and demanding accountability from the Union Education Ministry. Participants carried placards and candles, raising concerns over the impact of examination failures on students’ futures.
The gathering at Kochi reflected the broader character of the movement outside Delhi — unlike the large-scale marches in the national capital, several protests in Kerala took the form of peaceful vigils and symbolic demonstrations. Participants said they were joining the mobilisation because they could not travel to Delhi but wanted to register their opposition to alleged failures in the examination system.
Similar expressions of solidarity were reported from other parts of Kerala, including Thrissur, where activists issued statements criticising examination irregularities and the pressure faced by students. The groups argued that repeated disruptions in competitive examinations had created uncertainty among lakhs of aspirants and demanded accountability from those responsible.
Unlike Bihar and Delhi, where protesters faced direct police action, no major confrontation between police and protesters was reported in Kerala. The state’s experience therefore represented another dimension of the nationwide mobilisation — a movement sustained not only through street confrontations but also through public gatherings, vigils and expressions of civic solidarity.
- Ladakh: Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance extend solidarity with student protests
The student-led protests over examination irregularities and the police crackdown in Delhi also received support from Ladakh, with the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) expressing solidarity with the ongoing agitation. Leaders from the two major civil society groups of Ladakh visited the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest site at Jantar Mantar on July 21 and extended support to the students’ demand for accountability in the examination system.
According to a report by PTI carried by ThePrint, the delegation included KDA leaders Asgar Karbalai and Sajjad Kargili, along with Leh Apex Body representatives Chhering Dorjey Lakruk, Mohammadi Shafi, Ashraf Barcha and Dechan Chamba. They met CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and other protesters at the protest site, conveying solidarity over allegations of competitive examination irregularities and concerns regarding the future of students.
The KDA and LAB linked the students’ concerns with a wider question of institutional accountability. Speaking to PTI, KDA representative Sajjad Kargili said the alleged paper leak issue was a serious concern and that people in Ladakh shared the demand for a transparent and accountable education system.
- Bihar: Tear gas, water cannons and lathi-charge against student march
Bihar saw one of the strongest reactions from authorities after student groups organised demonstrations in solidarity with the Delhi protests. Students under the banner of the All India Students’ Association (AISA) organised a march towards the Raj Bhavan in Patna, demanding accountability over examination irregularities and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
According to reports by Times of India, the march was stopped near Gandhi Maidan and JP Golambar, where police deployed water cannons, tear gas shells and baton charges to disperse protesters.
The police action in Patna came shortly after the Delhi crackdown, with protesters also raising objections to the force used against demonstrators in the national capital. CPI (ML) Liberation MLA Sandeep Sourav, who participated in the protest, criticised the handling of the demonstrations and accused authorities of attempting to suppress student voices.
The events in Bihar reinforced concerns among student groups that peaceful demonstrations over public issues were increasingly being addressed through law-and-order measures rather than dialogue.
- Goa: Solidarity march followed by FIR over alleged procedural violations
Goa witnessed a solidarity march in Panaji supporting the student-led mobilisation. Hundreds of protesters gathered for a candlelight march from the Miramar area to Azad Maidan, organised by Goa-based NGO Uzwaad. Participants raised concerns over examination failures and demanded accountability for students affected by alleged paper leaks and cancellations.
Image: Instagram / goanewshub_gnh
However, police later registered an FIR against unknown protesters, alleging unlawful assembly and stating that the gathering had taken place without prior permission from authorities. The case reflected a recurring issue seen across several states — the use of procedural requirements governing public assemblies as the basis for legal action against demonstrations. While authorities have argued that permissions are necessary for maintaining public order, activists have questioned whether such provisions are being applied disproportionately against peaceful protests.
- Himachal Pradesh: Government joins protest demanding accountability
In Himachal Pradesh, the protest took the form of a political demonstration, with Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu joining Congress leaders in a sit-in outside the Governor’s residence. According to The Hindu, Congress leaders described the protest as an expression of solidarity with students and accused the Union government of failing to protect the interests of young aspirants facing examination-related uncertainty.
Sukhu demanded accountability from the central government and called for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. He also criticised the detention of opposition leaders during protests in Delhi, arguing that action against elected representatives and students raised concerns about democratic freedoms.
- Punjab and Haryana: Opposition protests and preventive detentions
In Punjab, Congress leaders held a demonstration outside Lok Bhawan in Chandigarh, expressing solidarity with protesting students. The protest was led by former minister Balbir Singh Sidhu and former Punjab Assembly Speaker Rana K.P. Singh, who criticised the handling of examination-related grievances and demanded accountability.
In Haryana, Congress leaders attempting to reach Haryana Lok Bhawan were detained by police. According to The Hindu, Haryana Congress leaders said they were protesting alongside students and demanding a transparent examination system and protection of democratic rights.
- Karnataka and other southern states: Political mobilisation expands
The protests also spread to Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana, where opposition parties and student groups organised demonstrations over examination irregularities.
Reports by Deccan Herald provided that Congress workers held protests in Bengaluru and other cities, with some leaders facing police detention during demonstrations.
In Tamil Nadu and Telangana, political parties also expressed support for student demands, arguing that repeated examination controversies required structural reforms rather than temporary responses.
- Maharashtra: Solidarity protests in Mumbai and Pune followed by FIRs against demonstrators
Maharashtra emerged as one of the key centres of solidarity mobilisation after the student protests in Delhi intensified following the July 20 police crackdown. Demonstrations were reported in Mumbai and Pune, with protesters demanding accountability over alleged examination irregularities and expressing support for the nationwide student movement.
In Mumbai, supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) held demonstrations at multiple locations, including Azad Maidan and Shivaji Park. The protests focused on demands for a transparent examination system and accountability over alleged failures in the conduct of competitive examinations. The Indian Express reported that Azad Maidan became a gathering point for citizens and activists supporting the CJP-led agitation, with protesters raising demands including the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET-UG paper leak controversy.
The mobilisation also saw participation from political leaders. Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray had earlier extended support to the agitation and demanded that the Union Education Minister step down, arguing that accountability was necessary following repeated concerns over examination management.
In Pune, thousands gathered near the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Garden outside the District Collectorate on July 20 in support of the movement. According to The Indian Express, the demonstration remained peaceful and concluded without any reported confrontation with police. Protesters raised concerns over the NEET-UG paper leak and other examination-related issues affecting students.
However, the State response in Mumbai quickly shifted towards legal action. The Mumbai Police registered an FIR against organisers of a Shivaji Park protest, citing that the demonstration had taken place without prior permission. The case was registered under provisions relating to unlawful assembly.
Subsequently, Mumbai Police registered multiple FIRs connected with CJP-related demonstrations across the city. Reports stated that cases were filed across several police stations, including against hundreds of protesters, on allegations of unauthorised gatherings and violations of law-and-order provisions.
The police action in Maharashtra reflected a wider pattern visible across states after the July 20 Delhi crackdown — while protesters sought to expand a public conversation on examination failures and institutional accountability, authorities relied heavily on restrictions, permission requirements and criminal proceedings to regulate demonstrations.
Detailed report may be read here.
Maharashtra chief minister, Devendra Fadnavis was reported ‘warning’ protesters who indulged in violence and ‘unlawful demonstrations. Independent media and social media reports from Mumbai, Pune and elsewhere in the state however showed clear “orders” to police authorities to criminalise democratic and peaceful actions, with FIRs and notices being issued across Maharashtra. Report may be read here.
Madhya Pradesh: Indore students join nationwide mobilisation against exam failures and Delhi crackdown
The student-led mobilisation that began at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar found a strong echo in Madhya Pradesh, particularly in Indore, where hundreds of students took to the streets demanding accountability over examination irregularities and condemning the police action against protesters in the national capital. Indore, one of central India’s major education hubs with a large population of competitive exam aspirants, emerged as an important centre of solidarity after the July 20 crackdown in Delhi.
On July 22, more than 1,000 students, coaching faculty members and local residents gathered at Bhanwarkuan in Indore, a well-known student area, to protest against the alleged NEET paper leak and demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. According to reports by The Times of India and Navbharat Times, the demonstration was organised in solidarity with the Jantar Mantar protesters after Delhi Police used force during the “Chalo Sansad” march on July 20.
The protest in Indore was not an isolated reaction to the Delhi events. Students had already been mobilising locally over examination-related concerns. Earlier in July, hundreds of students had marched to the Indore Collectorate after a prolonged protest, raising demands linked to alleged NEET irregularities and wider failures in the examination system. Reports by Free Press Journal noted that some students shaved their heads as a mark of protest and staged a sit-in outside the Collectorate, accusing authorities of failing to respond to their concerns.
- Rajasthan: From Sikar’s torch march to wider student solidarity
Rajasthan, a state with one of India’s largest competitive examination ecosystems, also witnessed significant mobilisation in support of the student protests. Student groups and activists in the state linked their demonstrations to concerns over examination integrity, alleged paper leaks and the demand for accountability from education authorities.
In Sikar, a major coaching hub for medical and competitive examinations, students, activists and members of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) organised a torch march protesting alleged NEET irregularities and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The march began from Piprali Circle and culminated at CLC Chowk, with participants carrying placards and raising slogans demanding a transparent investigation into alleged examination failures. The Times of India reported that the protest included student representatives, activists and local political figures, who called for reforms in the examination system and accountability for those responsible.
The protests in Sikar carried particular significance because the city has long been recognised as a centre for NEET and other competitive examination preparation. Students there argued that repeated controversies around entrance examinations had created uncertainty among aspirants who spend years preparing for highly competitive tests.
Earlier, Jaipur had also witnessed mobilisation linked to the broader campaign. Reports by The Times of India noted that CJP had announced demonstrations in Jaipur highlighting issues including alleged paper leaks, examination irregularities, unemployment concerns and failures in the education system.
The student-led mobilisation that began at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar found a strong echo in Madhya Pradesh, particularly in Indore, where hundreds of students took to the streets demanding accountability over examination irregularities and condemning the police action against protesters in the national capital. Indore, one of central India’s major education hubs with a large population of competitive exam aspirants, emerged as an important centre of solidarity after the July 20 crackdown in Delhi.
On July 22, more than 1,000 students, coaching faculty members and local residents gathered at Bhanwarkuan in Indore, a well-known student area, to protest against the alleged NEET paper leak and demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. According to reports by The Times of India and Navbharat Times, the demonstration was organised in solidarity with the Jantar Mantar protesters after Delhi Police used force during the “Chalo Sansad” march on July 20.
The protest in Indore was not an isolated reaction to the Delhi events. Students had already been mobilising locally over examination-related concerns. Earlier in July, hundreds of students had marched to the Indore Collectorate after a prolonged protest, raising demands linked to alleged NEET irregularities and wider failures in the examination system. Reports by Free Press Journal noted that some students shaved their heads as a mark of protest and staged a sit-in outside the Collectorate, accusing authorities of failing to respond to their concerns.
- Rajasthan: From Sikar’s torch march to wider student solidarity
Rajasthan, a state with one of India’s largest competitive examination ecosystems, also witnessed significant mobilisation in support of the student protests. Student groups and activists in the state linked their demonstrations to concerns over examination integrity, alleged paper leaks and the demand for accountability from education authorities.
In Sikar, a major coaching hub for medical and competitive examinations, students, activists and members of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) organised a torch march protesting alleged NEET irregularities and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The march began from Piprali Circle and culminated at CLC Chowk, with participants carrying placards and raising slogans demanding a transparent investigation into alleged examination failures. The Times of India reported that the protest included student representatives, activists and local political figures, who called for reforms in the examination system and accountability for those responsible.
The protests in Sikar carried particular significance because the city has long been recognised as a centre for NEET and other competitive examination preparation. Students there argued that repeated controversies around entrance examinations had created uncertainty among aspirants who spend years preparing for highly competitive tests.
Earlier, Jaipur had also witnessed mobilisation linked to the broader campaign. Reports by The Times of India noted that CJP had announced demonstrations in Jaipur highlighting issues including alleged paper leaks, examination irregularities, unemployment concerns and failures in the education system.
Opposition joins protests as Parliament witnesses disruption
The protests also entered Parliament, where opposition parties raised the issue of police action against students. According to reports by The Times of India, parliamentary proceedings were disrupted for the second consecutive day as opposition MPs protested over the treatment of demonstrators.
Congress leaders accused the government of avoiding accountability, while opposition parties demanded discussion on examination failures and alleged police excesses. Outside Parliament, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi led a protest near the Prime Minister’s residence along with party leaders and MPs. The protest resulted in police intervention, with Gandhi and other leaders being removed from the site.
The protests also entered Parliament, where opposition parties raised the issue of police action against students. According to reports by The Times of India, parliamentary proceedings were disrupted for the second consecutive day as opposition MPs protested over the treatment of demonstrators.
Congress leaders accused the government of avoiding accountability, while opposition parties demanded discussion on examination failures and alleged police excesses. Outside Parliament, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi led a protest near the Prime Minister’s residence along with party leaders and MPs. The protest resulted in police intervention, with Gandhi and other leaders being removed from the site.
International solidarity emerges as protests draw attention beyond India
The student-led protests also received expressions of solidarity outside India, with demonstrations and public gatherings organised in several countries after the police crackdown on protesters in Delhi.
In the United States, activists from the advocacy group Hindus for Human Rights held demonstrations in New York and San Jose, expressing support for the protesting students and raising concerns over the treatment of demonstrators in India. According to TOI reports, protesters gathered near the statue of Mahatma Gandhi at Union Square in New York and in San Jose, carrying placards supporting the student movement and demanding accountability over examination irregularities.
Similar solidarity actions were reported outside Indian diplomatic missions in London and Dublin, where participants called for engagement with protesters and urged authorities to address concerns raised by students rather than respond through coercive measures.
The overseas demonstrations reflected how the controversy around examination failures and the subsequent police action had travelled beyond India’s borders. The international response also highlighted the wider attention generated by the July 20 crackdown, with images and accounts of injured students, tear gas deployment and clashes near Parliament circulating globally.
The student-led protests also received expressions of solidarity outside India, with demonstrations and public gatherings organised in several countries after the police crackdown on protesters in Delhi.
In the United States, activists from the advocacy group Hindus for Human Rights held demonstrations in New York and San Jose, expressing support for the protesting students and raising concerns over the treatment of demonstrators in India. According to TOI reports, protesters gathered near the statue of Mahatma Gandhi at Union Square in New York and in San Jose, carrying placards supporting the student movement and demanding accountability over examination irregularities.
Similar solidarity actions were reported outside Indian diplomatic missions in London and Dublin, where participants called for engagement with protesters and urged authorities to address concerns raised by students rather than respond through coercive measures.
The overseas demonstrations reflected how the controversy around examination failures and the subsequent police action had travelled beyond India’s borders. The international response also highlighted the wider attention generated by the July 20 crackdown, with images and accounts of injured students, tear gas deployment and clashes near Parliament circulating globally.
A nationwide pattern: Solidarity grows, but so does state desperation
Across states, the nature of protests differed — from candlelight vigils in Kerala to confrontations with police in Bihar and legal action in Goa and Maharashtra. However, a common thread emerged: the movement expanded because protesters viewed the examination crisis as part of a larger question of institutional accountability.
The State response also varied. In some places, authorities allowed peaceful gatherings (mostly in opposition governed states); in others, protests were met with barricades, force, detentions and criminal cases. The spread of protests across India demonstrated that the July 20 crackdown did not end the mobilisation. Instead, it transformed a Delhi-based demonstration into a national conversation about education, governance and the democratic space available for dissent.
The Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), subject to reasonable restrictions. The challenge for the State is to maintain public order without treating dissent itself as a disruption. The events following July 20 demonstrate a recurring tension in India’s democracy: whether public anger, particularly from young citizens, will be addressed through engagement and accountability or managed primarily through policing.
The return of injured protesters to the streets and the spread of solidarity demonstrations across states suggest that the crackdown did not silence the movement. Instead, it transformed a Delhi protest into a nationwide debate over education, accountability and the democratic right to demand answers.
Courtesy: Sabrang India
Across states, the nature of protests differed — from candlelight vigils in Kerala to confrontations with police in Bihar and legal action in Goa and Maharashtra. However, a common thread emerged: the movement expanded because protesters viewed the examination crisis as part of a larger question of institutional accountability.
The State response also varied. In some places, authorities allowed peaceful gatherings (mostly in opposition governed states); in others, protests were met with barricades, force, detentions and criminal cases. The spread of protests across India demonstrated that the July 20 crackdown did not end the mobilisation. Instead, it transformed a Delhi-based demonstration into a national conversation about education, governance and the democratic space available for dissent.
The Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), subject to reasonable restrictions. The challenge for the State is to maintain public order without treating dissent itself as a disruption. The events following July 20 demonstrate a recurring tension in India’s democracy: whether public anger, particularly from young citizens, will be addressed through engagement and accountability or managed primarily through policing.
The return of injured protesters to the streets and the spread of solidarity demonstrations across states suggest that the crackdown did not silence the movement. Instead, it transformed a Delhi protest into a nationwide debate over education, accountability and the democratic right to demand answers.
Courtesy: Sabrang India
The Flower in the Rifle: On the Legality and the Morality of Peaceful Protests
Across the globe, history shows us that the right to protest has never depended on the State’s permission – whether it be Dandi, Birmingham, or Jantar Mantar.%20(2).jpg)
When the people gathered at Jantar Mantar this Monday, fasting and chanting and holding copies of the Indian Constitution above their heads to demand that a Union minister answer for a leaked examination that had upended a generation, the Government of India had a tidy explanation for why they were blocked, detained and brutally beaten up: they had no ‘permission’, and that the gathering was unauthorized.
It is worth pausing on that word, ‘permission’. Permission is something superiors grant to subordinates, and to say that citizens may protest only with the government’s leave is to make the freedom to dissent, a favour the powerful lend to the powerless, revocable the moment it turns inconvenient. That is precisely what a fundamental right is not. The real question is this: is it right to protest without permission, and what does an unarmed protest carry that a free country must protect even when the paperwork is not in order?
To answer, it helps to begin far from Delhi. On October 21, 1967, outside the Pentagon, a girl of seventeen named Jan Rose Kasmir stood before a line of soldiers with fixed bayonets, holding a single chrysanthemum. Marc Riboud’s photograph of that moment has travelled further than most armies: on one side of the frame, helmets and uniforms and steel; on the other, a young woman with no hatred in her face, holding something that could be crushed between two fingers.
A flower cannot stop a bullet, but it can make the bullet explain itself. That is the power of peaceful protest, and why the quarrel over permission misses what matters most. The law asks whether the gathering was ‘authorized’, whether the road was blocked, whether order was disturbed. History, however, asks a harder question: what kind of order needs a bayonet to defend itself against a flower?
The real question is this: is it right to protest without permission, and what does an unarmed protest carry that a free country must protect even when the paperwork is not in order?
%20(2).jpg)
When the people gathered at Jantar Mantar this Monday, fasting and chanting and holding copies of the Indian Constitution above their heads to demand that a Union minister answer for a leaked examination that had upended a generation, the Government of India had a tidy explanation for why they were blocked, detained and brutally beaten up: they had no ‘permission’, and that the gathering was unauthorized.
It is worth pausing on that word, ‘permission’. Permission is something superiors grant to subordinates, and to say that citizens may protest only with the government’s leave is to make the freedom to dissent, a favour the powerful lend to the powerless, revocable the moment it turns inconvenient. That is precisely what a fundamental right is not. The real question is this: is it right to protest without permission, and what does an unarmed protest carry that a free country must protect even when the paperwork is not in order?
To answer, it helps to begin far from Delhi. On October 21, 1967, outside the Pentagon, a girl of seventeen named Jan Rose Kasmir stood before a line of soldiers with fixed bayonets, holding a single chrysanthemum. Marc Riboud’s photograph of that moment has travelled further than most armies: on one side of the frame, helmets and uniforms and steel; on the other, a young woman with no hatred in her face, holding something that could be crushed between two fingers.
A flower cannot stop a bullet, but it can make the bullet explain itself. That is the power of peaceful protest, and why the quarrel over permission misses what matters most. The law asks whether the gathering was ‘authorized’, whether the road was blocked, whether order was disturbed. History, however, asks a harder question: what kind of order needs a bayonet to defend itself against a flower?
The real question is this: is it right to protest without permission, and what does an unarmed protest carry that a free country must protect even when the paperwork is not in order?
Peaceful does not mean polite
The Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, and those last words hold both the right and its only real limit. Peacefully does not mean silently, and without arms does not mean without anger. A protest that causes no discomfort to anyone in power is usually not a protest at all. It is a suggestion.
The Supreme Court has recognized peaceful protest as a fundamental right and a form of direct participation, the way citizens hold power to account between elections. The State may regulate the route, hour and manner in the interest of public order, but it may not regulate dissent quietly out of existence. Peaceful protest is not the absence of disturbance; it is the absence of violence. Nonviolent direct action, as Dr. King practiced it, was never the enemy of negotiation but the pressure without which the powerful had no reason to come to the table. It is not passivity but confrontation under a very hard discipline.
The Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, and those last words hold both the right and its only real limit. Peacefully does not mean silently, and without arms does not mean without anger. A protest that causes no discomfort to anyone in power is usually not a protest at all. It is a suggestion.
The Supreme Court has recognized peaceful protest as a fundamental right and a form of direct participation, the way citizens hold power to account between elections. The State may regulate the route, hour and manner in the interest of public order, but it may not regulate dissent quietly out of existence. Peaceful protest is not the absence of disturbance; it is the absence of violence. Nonviolent direct action, as Dr. King practiced it, was never the enemy of negotiation but the pressure without which the powerful had no reason to come to the table. It is not passivity but confrontation under a very hard discipline.
When breaking the law honours it
Here the language of permission finally fails, because lawful protest and rightful protest have never been the same thing, and the gap between them is the source of its moral power. In March 1930, before he walked to the sea, Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy an ultimatum that opened, all the same, with the words “Dear Friend”. He announced what he meant to do, called the salt law unjust, and walked from Sabarmati to Dandi to break it in broad daylight. This is the whole character of the satyagrahi: he does not slip past the law in the dark but breaks an unjust law in the open and accepts the prison that follows. He does not say the law has no authority; he says only that authority cannot make an injustice, just.
After Dandi, Gandhi was arrested, but the marchers did not stop, and at the Dharasana salt works unarmed volunteers walked in disciplined rows into the lathis of the waiting police. They were clubbed down, and others stepped calmly into their places, and the correspondent Webb Miller reported that the men did not even raise their arms against the blows. His dispatch went round the world: an empire beating unresisting men to guard its monopoly over a fistful of salt. The British still held the whole statute book; after Dharasana they held a little less of the thing that cannot be legislated back, which is legitimacy.
That is what satyagraha means when both halves are given their weight. Satya is truth; agraha is insistence, not a mild preference for the truth but a refusal to cooperate with its opposite, aimed always at the wrong and never at the worth of the one who does it. Peaceful protest carries two refusals at once: I will not obey injustice, and I will not become unjust in opposing it.
Delhi Police lathi charges on protesting students at Janta Mantar. Source: Scroll
Here the language of permission finally fails, because lawful protest and rightful protest have never been the same thing, and the gap between them is the source of its moral power. In March 1930, before he walked to the sea, Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy an ultimatum that opened, all the same, with the words “Dear Friend”. He announced what he meant to do, called the salt law unjust, and walked from Sabarmati to Dandi to break it in broad daylight. This is the whole character of the satyagrahi: he does not slip past the law in the dark but breaks an unjust law in the open and accepts the prison that follows. He does not say the law has no authority; he says only that authority cannot make an injustice, just.
After Dandi, Gandhi was arrested, but the marchers did not stop, and at the Dharasana salt works unarmed volunteers walked in disciplined rows into the lathis of the waiting police. They were clubbed down, and others stepped calmly into their places, and the correspondent Webb Miller reported that the men did not even raise their arms against the blows. His dispatch went round the world: an empire beating unresisting men to guard its monopoly over a fistful of salt. The British still held the whole statute book; after Dharasana they held a little less of the thing that cannot be legislated back, which is legitimacy.
That is what satyagraha means when both halves are given their weight. Satya is truth; agraha is insistence, not a mild preference for the truth but a refusal to cooperate with its opposite, aimed always at the wrong and never at the worth of the one who does it. Peaceful protest carries two refusals at once: I will not obey injustice, and I will not become unjust in opposing it.
Delhi Police lathi charges on protesting students at Janta Mantar. Source: Scroll
The seat that moved a nation
On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger and was arrested for it. What followed was a boycott of more than a year.Thousands of Black citizens walked to work until the segregated buses gave way. The act looks almost too small for the history it made. One woman kept her seat. But courage is not always a raised fist; sometimes it is simply a body that will not move. Parks did not seize the bus or threaten the driver. She declined to assist in her own humiliation. The law told her where to sit, her conscience asked ‘By what right?’, and by sitting down she helped an entire people stand up.
On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger and was arrested for it. What followed was a boycott of more than a year.Thousands of Black citizens walked to work until the segregated buses gave way. The act looks almost too small for the history it made. One woman kept her seat. But courage is not always a raised fist; sometimes it is simply a body that will not move. Parks did not seize the bus or threaten the driver. She declined to assist in her own humiliation. The law told her where to sit, her conscience asked ‘By what right?’, and by sitting down she helped an entire people stand up.
Children against fire hoses
It is also why, in Birmingham in 1963, it mattered so much that many who marched against segregation were children. They came out of the churches singing, into streets where Bull Connor’s men waited with dogs and with hoses whose pressure tore children off their feet. The children did not create the violence in Birmingham; they revealed it. Segregation had always been violent, but the violence had learned to stay hidden, folded into the schoolhouse door, the lunch counter and the threat behind every command to keep to one’s place. The marches dragged it into daylight, where respectable people could no longer arrange not to see it.
It is also why, in Birmingham in 1963, it mattered so much that many who marched against segregation were children. They came out of the churches singing, into streets where Bull Connor’s men waited with dogs and with hoses whose pressure tore children off their feet. The children did not create the violence in Birmingham; they revealed it. Segregation had always been violent, but the violence had learned to stay hidden, folded into the schoolhouse door, the lunch counter and the threat behind every command to keep to one’s place. The marches dragged it into daylight, where respectable people could no longer arrange not to see it.
The man in the doorway
Defiance, though, is not by itself a virtue. The same courage that stands firm can be spent in an ugly cause. On June 11, 1963, on the steps of the University of Alabama, Governor George Wallace planted himself in a schoolhouse doorway to keep two Black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, from registering. He had a State behind him; they had admission orders and the nerve to keep walking.
President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard, Wallace was made to step aside, and the students passed through the door he had tried to hold shut. Years later he visited the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, the congregation Martin Luther King had once led, and asked Black Alabamians to forgive him, and he sought out James Hood, the very man he had once tried to keep out. The law can force a man to move his feet; moral force, slowly and imperfectly, can make him see where he had been standing.
Defiance, though, is not by itself a virtue. The same courage that stands firm can be spent in an ugly cause. On June 11, 1963, on the steps of the University of Alabama, Governor George Wallace planted himself in a schoolhouse doorway to keep two Black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, from registering. He had a State behind him; they had admission orders and the nerve to keep walking.
President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard, Wallace was made to step aside, and the students passed through the door he had tried to hold shut. Years later he visited the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, the congregation Martin Luther King had once led, and asked Black Alabamians to forgive him, and he sought out James Hood, the very man he had once tried to keep out. The law can force a man to move his feet; moral force, slowly and imperfectly, can make him see where he had been standing.
The man before the tank
Peaceful protest offers no guarantees: it does not always soften the heart across from it, and it shields no one who practices it. On June 5, 1989, the day after Chinese troops fired on protesters near Tiananmen Square, a single unarmed man stepped in front of a column of tanks on Chan’an Avenue, carrying what looked like two shopping bags. When the lead tank tried to steer around him, he moved with it, again and again, and for a few minutes one human body held a whole line of machines at a standstill. His name and his fate were never established. He did not bring down the government or undo the killings of the night before, and the tanks, it must be said plainly, did not turn into flowers. And yet the image has outlived nearly everything around it: one nameless man asking a machine whether it would really grind him into the road before the whole watching world.
Peaceful protest offers no guarantees: it does not always soften the heart across from it, and it shields no one who practices it.
Peaceful protest offers no guarantees: it does not always soften the heart across from it, and it shields no one who practices it. On June 5, 1989, the day after Chinese troops fired on protesters near Tiananmen Square, a single unarmed man stepped in front of a column of tanks on Chan’an Avenue, carrying what looked like two shopping bags. When the lead tank tried to steer around him, he moved with it, again and again, and for a few minutes one human body held a whole line of machines at a standstill. His name and his fate were never established. He did not bring down the government or undo the killings of the night before, and the tanks, it must be said plainly, did not turn into flowers. And yet the image has outlived nearly everything around it: one nameless man asking a machine whether it would really grind him into the road before the whole watching world.
Peaceful protest offers no guarantees: it does not always soften the heart across from it, and it shields no one who practices it.
The difficult love of an enemy
There is a line often sung, in a rather different context: Itni nafrat se na dekho dushman ko, shayad woh tumse pyaar kar baithe. Do not look upon your enemy with so much hatred that you deny him even the chance of one day becoming something other than your enemy.
This is neither soft nor sentimental. Love of an enemy is among the hardest things asked of anyone, in the Gospels and by Gandhi alike, because it does not ask us to pretend the enemy has done no wrong. It asks something harder - that we resist the wrong without letting it reproduce itself inside us. Hatred promises strength and tends to deliver imitation, whispering to the oppressed that freedom lies in taking up the oppressor’s weapons, then his cruelty, and at last his very imagination. Peaceful protest demands justice from its opponent, in full and without discount, and only then leaves the door open for him to one day return to his humanity. The onus to walk through it is his, not the wronged party’s to hold open forever. Sometimes he never does. The door stays open anyway, but it is no amnesty, and no substitute for the reckoning.
There is a line often sung, in a rather different context: Itni nafrat se na dekho dushman ko, shayad woh tumse pyaar kar baithe. Do not look upon your enemy with so much hatred that you deny him even the chance of one day becoming something other than your enemy.
This is neither soft nor sentimental. Love of an enemy is among the hardest things asked of anyone, in the Gospels and by Gandhi alike, because it does not ask us to pretend the enemy has done no wrong. It asks something harder - that we resist the wrong without letting it reproduce itself inside us. Hatred promises strength and tends to deliver imitation, whispering to the oppressed that freedom lies in taking up the oppressor’s weapons, then his cruelty, and at last his very imagination. Peaceful protest demands justice from its opponent, in full and without discount, and only then leaves the door open for him to one day return to his humanity. The onus to walk through it is his, not the wronged party’s to hold open forever. Sometimes he never does. The door stays open anyway, but it is no amnesty, and no substitute for the reckoning.
The wager we are asked to make
So, this, in the end, is what peaceful protest is. It is legal, because the right to dissent is written into the covenant of a free people. It is moral, because it refuses to become the thing it opposes. And it is powerful, more powerful than the tank, the hose and the baton, because it appeals over the head of force to the one court no regime can adjourn: the human conscience.
The flower does not pretend the rifle is empty. It simply refuses to believe the man behind it is beyond saving. That refusal is not a weakness. It is the most demanding courage we know, to stand still, unarmed, before power, and to go on believing that power, too, carries a heart that can break open.
We are watching the young make that same wager in our own season and our own streets, standing quietly with a book of rights in their hands. History has never been subtle about which side it comes to honour. It is not the ones who held the hose. It is always the ones who held the flower.
So, when you see them standing there, patient and unarmed, waiting only to be heard, do not look away, and do not tell them to go home. Stand where they stand, and demand with them the accounting they are owed, in every lawful way there is. Offer the flower if you will, but do not mistake it for a truce; it is a demand made in the open, and it falls to those in power, not to the wronged, to answer it. Trust, even so, the slow and stubborn arithmetic by which the unarmed have always, in the end, outlasted the gun.
The views are personal.
Courtesy: The Leaflet
So, this, in the end, is what peaceful protest is. It is legal, because the right to dissent is written into the covenant of a free people. It is moral, because it refuses to become the thing it opposes. And it is powerful, more powerful than the tank, the hose and the baton, because it appeals over the head of force to the one court no regime can adjourn: the human conscience.
The flower does not pretend the rifle is empty. It simply refuses to believe the man behind it is beyond saving. That refusal is not a weakness. It is the most demanding courage we know, to stand still, unarmed, before power, and to go on believing that power, too, carries a heart that can break open.
We are watching the young make that same wager in our own season and our own streets, standing quietly with a book of rights in their hands. History has never been subtle about which side it comes to honour. It is not the ones who held the hose. It is always the ones who held the flower.
So, when you see them standing there, patient and unarmed, waiting only to be heard, do not look away, and do not tell them to go home. Stand where they stand, and demand with them the accounting they are owed, in every lawful way there is. Offer the flower if you will, but do not mistake it for a truce; it is a demand made in the open, and it falls to those in power, not to the wronged, to answer it. Trust, even so, the slow and stubborn arithmetic by which the unarmed have always, in the end, outlasted the gun.
The views are personal.
Courtesy: The Leaflet
Exam Crisis That Became a Battle of Accountability
From student grievances to Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike, the movement questioned accountability, democracy and the limits of State intervention.
Image: J Allen Egenuse / The Hindu
On July 20, 2026, the streets around Delhi’s Jantar Mantar became the centre of a rapidly escalating confrontation between a student-led movement demanding accountability over alleged failures in the education system and a State determined to prevent the protest from moving towards Parliament. Despite heavy security deployment, prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), barricades across central Delhi and restrictions around Parliament, thousands of protesters gathered for the proposed “Chalo Sansad” march.
The day unfolded against the backdrop of an intensifying political and legal battle. Sonam Wangchuk, who had become one of the most prominent face of the agitation, remained on hunger strike under medical supervision at Safdarjung Hospital after being removed from Jantar Mantar on July 18. Even after his hospitalisation, Wangchuk stated that he would continue his fast until the government took accountability for recent failures in the education system, particularly alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks, or until elected representatives assured him that the issues would be raised in Parliament.
Alongside Sonam Wangchuk’s fast, the protest also witnessed a sustained hunger strike by student activists associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA). Three students, Neha, Manish and Aameen, continued their indefinite fast in solidarity with the wider movement, highlighting the direct impact that examination failures have had on young aspirants. Their protest lasted 23 days before they decided to conclude the fast on July 20 following an appeal from a delegation comprising parliamentarians, civil society representatives and public figures, who urged them to continue the struggle through parliamentary intervention and public campaigns.
Meanwhile, as protesters attempted to march towards Parliament, Delhi witnessed a major security mobilisation, with barricades, police deployment, paramilitary forces and restrictions on movement around central areas. Reports of state violence, allegations of force against protesters and the police denial of such allegations intensified the debate over the State’s handling of peaceful dissent. The administration justified its actions on grounds of public order and Parliament security, while protesters argued that preventive restrictions were being used to silence a movement demanding accountability.
The developments of July 20 therefore marked a decisive moment in the agitation. What began as a demand from students for answers over the credibility of India’s examination system had evolved into a larger constitutional contest — involving the right to peaceful protest, the State’s power to regulate public assemblies, the autonomy of an individual undertaking a hunger strike, and the responsibility of democratic institutions to respond to public grievances.
Image: J Allen Egenuse / The Hindu
On July 20, 2026, the streets around Delhi’s Jantar Mantar became the centre of a rapidly escalating confrontation between a student-led movement demanding accountability over alleged failures in the education system and a State determined to prevent the protest from moving towards Parliament. Despite heavy security deployment, prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), barricades across central Delhi and restrictions around Parliament, thousands of protesters gathered for the proposed “Chalo Sansad” march.
The day unfolded against the backdrop of an intensifying political and legal battle. Sonam Wangchuk, who had become one of the most prominent face of the agitation, remained on hunger strike under medical supervision at Safdarjung Hospital after being removed from Jantar Mantar on July 18. Even after his hospitalisation, Wangchuk stated that he would continue his fast until the government took accountability for recent failures in the education system, particularly alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks, or until elected representatives assured him that the issues would be raised in Parliament.
Alongside Sonam Wangchuk’s fast, the protest also witnessed a sustained hunger strike by student activists associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA). Three students, Neha, Manish and Aameen, continued their indefinite fast in solidarity with the wider movement, highlighting the direct impact that examination failures have had on young aspirants. Their protest lasted 23 days before they decided to conclude the fast on July 20 following an appeal from a delegation comprising parliamentarians, civil society representatives and public figures, who urged them to continue the struggle through parliamentary intervention and public campaigns.
Meanwhile, as protesters attempted to march towards Parliament, Delhi witnessed a major security mobilisation, with barricades, police deployment, paramilitary forces and restrictions on movement around central areas. Reports of state violence, allegations of force against protesters and the police denial of such allegations intensified the debate over the State’s handling of peaceful dissent. The administration justified its actions on grounds of public order and Parliament security, while protesters argued that preventive restrictions were being used to silence a movement demanding accountability.
The developments of July 20 therefore marked a decisive moment in the agitation. What began as a demand from students for answers over the credibility of India’s examination system had evolved into a larger constitutional contest — involving the right to peaceful protest, the State’s power to regulate public assemblies, the autonomy of an individual undertaking a hunger strike, and the responsibility of democratic institutions to respond to public grievances.
The Origins: A movement born out of the NEET crisis
The immediate trigger for the mobilisation was the controversy surrounding the NEET-UG 2026 examination held on May 3, 2026. Allegations of a paper leak and compromise of examination integrity led the National Testing Agency to cancel the examination on May 12, 2026 and announce a fresh examination, which was subsequently conducted on June 21, 2026.
The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) determines admission to medical colleges across the country and is viewed by lakhs of aspirants as a decisive examination shaping their academic and professional future. Allegations of malpractice and procedural failures therefore generated widespread anger among students, parents and civil society groups who questioned whether the examination system had failed to protect fairness and merit.
The controversy acquired a deeper human dimension as reports emerged of severe distress among students, including suicides allegedly linked to examination-related pressures and uncertainty surrounding the results. For many protesters, the issue was not limited to a single examination irregularity but reflected a larger crisis of accountability in India’s competitive examination system.
Against this backdrop, students and civil society groups began mobilising, demanding transparency, an impartial investigation into the alleged irregularities, accountability of those responsible, and measures to restore confidence in the examination process.
The movement found a visible presence at Jantar Mantar, a historic site of democratic protest in New Delhi. Located within close proximity to Parliament, Jantar Mantar has for decades served as a space where citizens, students, workers and civil society organisations have brought grievances directly into the public sphere.
For the protesters, gathering at Jantar Mantar was not merely an act of demonstration. It represented a constitutional appeal to the State — a demand that institutions responsible for administering examinations affecting millions of young people must answer questions of fairness, transparency and accountability.
The immediate trigger for the mobilisation was the controversy surrounding the NEET-UG 2026 examination held on May 3, 2026. Allegations of a paper leak and compromise of examination integrity led the National Testing Agency to cancel the examination on May 12, 2026 and announce a fresh examination, which was subsequently conducted on June 21, 2026.
The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) determines admission to medical colleges across the country and is viewed by lakhs of aspirants as a decisive examination shaping their academic and professional future. Allegations of malpractice and procedural failures therefore generated widespread anger among students, parents and civil society groups who questioned whether the examination system had failed to protect fairness and merit.
The controversy acquired a deeper human dimension as reports emerged of severe distress among students, including suicides allegedly linked to examination-related pressures and uncertainty surrounding the results. For many protesters, the issue was not limited to a single examination irregularity but reflected a larger crisis of accountability in India’s competitive examination system.
Against this backdrop, students and civil society groups began mobilising, demanding transparency, an impartial investigation into the alleged irregularities, accountability of those responsible, and measures to restore confidence in the examination process.
The movement found a visible presence at Jantar Mantar, a historic site of democratic protest in New Delhi. Located within close proximity to Parliament, Jantar Mantar has for decades served as a space where citizens, students, workers and civil society organisations have brought grievances directly into the public sphere.
For the protesters, gathering at Jantar Mantar was not merely an act of demonstration. It represented a constitutional appeal to the State — a demand that institutions responsible for administering examinations affecting millions of young people must answer questions of fairness, transparency and accountability.
Sonam Wangchuk enters the movement
Sonam Wangchuk’s decision to join the protest brought further national attention to a mobilisation that had already grown into a significant movement involving students, parents, civil society groups and supporters across the country. His decision to begin an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on June 28, 2026 became one of the defining moment in the agitation. Wangchuk stated that his fast was aimed at securing accountability for recent failures affecting students, including alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks. However, the articulation of his demands evolved during the course of the protest. While the wider CJP-led mobilisation had prominently raised the demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Wangchuk’s later conditions for ending the fast focused primarily on government acknowledgement of failures in the education system, parliamentary discussion on education accountability, and assurances from elected representatives that reforms would be taken up.
His entry into the agitation was significant because hunger strikes in India carry a long political and constitutional history. From Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagrahas to later public movements, fasting has frequently been used as a method of moral persuasion rather than physical confrontation.
Wangchuk began his indefinite hunger strike on June 28, 2026, at Jantar Mantar. According to Indian Express reports, he continued the fast for more than 21 days, maintaining that his objective was to compel political accountability rather than engage in confrontation with the State. His decision immediately elevated the visibility of the protest. Supporters viewed the hunger strike as an expression of Gandhian resistance — a voluntary sacrifice intended to draw attention to institutional failure.
The government’s response, however, increasingly centred around a different concern: the deterioration of Wangchuk’s health and the State’s responsibility to prevent serious medical harm. That conflict would eventually become the central legal issue before the Delhi High Court.
Sonam Wangchuk’s decision to join the protest brought further national attention to a mobilisation that had already grown into a significant movement involving students, parents, civil society groups and supporters across the country. His decision to begin an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on June 28, 2026 became one of the defining moment in the agitation. Wangchuk stated that his fast was aimed at securing accountability for recent failures affecting students, including alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks. However, the articulation of his demands evolved during the course of the protest. While the wider CJP-led mobilisation had prominently raised the demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Wangchuk’s later conditions for ending the fast focused primarily on government acknowledgement of failures in the education system, parliamentary discussion on education accountability, and assurances from elected representatives that reforms would be taken up.
His entry into the agitation was significant because hunger strikes in India carry a long political and constitutional history. From Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagrahas to later public movements, fasting has frequently been used as a method of moral persuasion rather than physical confrontation.
Wangchuk began his indefinite hunger strike on June 28, 2026, at Jantar Mantar. According to Indian Express reports, he continued the fast for more than 21 days, maintaining that his objective was to compel political accountability rather than engage in confrontation with the State. His decision immediately elevated the visibility of the protest. Supporters viewed the hunger strike as an expression of Gandhian resistance — a voluntary sacrifice intended to draw attention to institutional failure.
The government’s response, however, increasingly centred around a different concern: the deterioration of Wangchuk’s health and the State’s responsibility to prevent serious medical harm. That conflict would eventually become the central legal issue before the Delhi High Court.
Three Weeks of Escalation: From local protest to national attention
For nearly three weeks, the protest site at Jantar Mantar gradually became a focal point of public mobilisation. The early phase was marked by daily gatherings, student participation, speeches and solidarity visits. Over time, the presence of Wangchuk’s hunger strike attracted wider attention from civil society groups, public personalities and political figures.
The movement’s messaging expanded beyond the immediate examination controversy. It increasingly raised questions about:
- accountability of public institutions;
- transparency in governance;
- the treatment of students affected by systemic failures;
- the responsiveness of elected representatives.
The symbolism of an elderly activist undertaking a prolonged fast outside Parliament added further political weight. By mid-July, the protest had become a significant public mobilisation rather than an isolated demonstration. Media reports noted that supporters had planned a march towards Parliament during the Monsoon Session, increasing administrative concern over crowd management and law-and-order issues.
For nearly three weeks, the protest site at Jantar Mantar gradually became a focal point of public mobilisation. The early phase was marked by daily gatherings, student participation, speeches and solidarity visits. Over time, the presence of Wangchuk’s hunger strike attracted wider attention from civil society groups, public personalities and political figures.
The movement’s messaging expanded beyond the immediate examination controversy. It increasingly raised questions about:
- accountability of public institutions;
- transparency in governance;
- the treatment of students affected by systemic failures;
- the responsiveness of elected representatives.
The symbolism of an elderly activist undertaking a prolonged fast outside Parliament added further political weight. By mid-July, the protest had become a significant public mobilisation rather than an isolated demonstration. Media reports noted that supporters had planned a march towards Parliament during the Monsoon Session, increasing administrative concern over crowd management and law-and-order issues.
The State’s Intervention: From silence to medical enforcement
As Sonam Wangchuk’s indefinite hunger strike entered its third week, the nature of the State’s response came under increasing scrutiny. The protest was not merely about the continuation of a fast; it was rooted in demands for accountability over the NEET examination crisis, alleged failures in ensuring the integrity of the examination process, and the distress faced by thousands of students whose academic futures had been affected.
During the initial phase of the protest, the authorities did not undertake any visible intervention to address these larger concerns or engage meaningfully with the demands being raised by students and civil society groups. Despite Wangchuk’s prolonged fast at Jantar Mantar and growing public attention, the administration did not immediately attempt to remove him from the protest site or directly intervene in the course of the agitation.
The State’s intervention came later, primarily through the lens of Wangchuk’s health condition. This shift — from limited engagement with the substantive demands of the movement to active intervention on medical grounds — became one of the central issues of contestation before the Delhi High Court.
Instead of directly interacting with the protester, the matter reached the Delhi High Court through proceedings concerning medical monitoring of Wangchuk’s condition. The Court’s intervention at that stage was limited: it sought to ensure that his health was being regularly monitored and that necessary medical assistance remained available. Crucially, the Court did not direct the termination of the hunger strike. It did not authorise the forcible removal of Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar or permit the State to override his expressed choice regarding the continuation of his protest.
The petitioners later argued that the administration transformed a limited judicial direction regarding medical supervision into a justification for a far more intrusive action — physically removing Wangchuk from the protest site and shifting him to a hospital against the wishes of those supporting the protest. The controversy therefore was not merely about medical care; it was about the scope of executive power.
The July 18: Removal from Jantar Mantar
On July 18, after Wangchuk had completed more than three weeks of fasting, Delhi Police removed him from the Jantar Mantar protest site and shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital. The police justified the action on medical grounds, stating that Wangchuk’s condition had deteriorated and that the intervention was undertaken to protect his health. Reports by The Indian Express stated that police relied on medical advice and referred to the earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court while explaining the decision. However, the manner of the removal became the immediate subject of controversy.
Protesters alleged that the police action amounted to the forced removal of a peaceful demonstrator and argued that the State had used health concerns as a justification to break up the protest. Visuals from the site showed heavy police presence and officers surrounding Wangchuk during the transfer, leading supporters to allege the use of unnecessary force. The police disputed these allegations, maintaining that the action was carried out with restraint and that intervention became necessary after resistance from protesters.
The State defended its actions on the ground that it was not attempting to suppress dissent but fulfilling its constitutional obligation to protect life. According to the authorities, once medical concerns became serious, allowing the fast to continue without intervention would have amounted to neglect of a citizen’s welfare. The protesters, however, viewed the intervention differently.
They argued that Wangchuk was a consenting adult exercising a political choice and that the State had converted a concern for health into an instrument to interrupt a lawful protest. In their view, the right to peaceful dissent includes the freedom to choose the form and intensity of protest, including voluntary fasting.
The dispute therefore brought three constitutional guarantees into direct tension:
- Article 19(1)(a): the freedom of speech and expression, which includes political communication and dissent;
- Article 19(1)(b): the right to assemble peacefully;
- Article 21: the right to life and personal liberty, which includes bodily autonomy and decisional freedom.
The question before the Court was not whether the State valued life. The question was whether the State could protect life by overriding the very autonomy that constitutional liberty seeks to preserve.
As Sonam Wangchuk’s indefinite hunger strike entered its third week, the nature of the State’s response came under increasing scrutiny. The protest was not merely about the continuation of a fast; it was rooted in demands for accountability over the NEET examination crisis, alleged failures in ensuring the integrity of the examination process, and the distress faced by thousands of students whose academic futures had been affected.
During the initial phase of the protest, the authorities did not undertake any visible intervention to address these larger concerns or engage meaningfully with the demands being raised by students and civil society groups. Despite Wangchuk’s prolonged fast at Jantar Mantar and growing public attention, the administration did not immediately attempt to remove him from the protest site or directly intervene in the course of the agitation.
The State’s intervention came later, primarily through the lens of Wangchuk’s health condition. This shift — from limited engagement with the substantive demands of the movement to active intervention on medical grounds — became one of the central issues of contestation before the Delhi High Court.
Instead of directly interacting with the protester, the matter reached the Delhi High Court through proceedings concerning medical monitoring of Wangchuk’s condition. The Court’s intervention at that stage was limited: it sought to ensure that his health was being regularly monitored and that necessary medical assistance remained available. Crucially, the Court did not direct the termination of the hunger strike. It did not authorise the forcible removal of Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar or permit the State to override his expressed choice regarding the continuation of his protest.
The petitioners later argued that the administration transformed a limited judicial direction regarding medical supervision into a justification for a far more intrusive action — physically removing Wangchuk from the protest site and shifting him to a hospital against the wishes of those supporting the protest. The controversy therefore was not merely about medical care; it was about the scope of executive power.
The July 18: Removal from Jantar Mantar
On July 18, after Wangchuk had completed more than three weeks of fasting, Delhi Police removed him from the Jantar Mantar protest site and shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital. The police justified the action on medical grounds, stating that Wangchuk’s condition had deteriorated and that the intervention was undertaken to protect his health. Reports by The Indian Express stated that police relied on medical advice and referred to the earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court while explaining the decision. However, the manner of the removal became the immediate subject of controversy.
Protesters alleged that the police action amounted to the forced removal of a peaceful demonstrator and argued that the State had used health concerns as a justification to break up the protest. Visuals from the site showed heavy police presence and officers surrounding Wangchuk during the transfer, leading supporters to allege the use of unnecessary force. The police disputed these allegations, maintaining that the action was carried out with restraint and that intervention became necessary after resistance from protesters.
The State defended its actions on the ground that it was not attempting to suppress dissent but fulfilling its constitutional obligation to protect life. According to the authorities, once medical concerns became serious, allowing the fast to continue without intervention would have amounted to neglect of a citizen’s welfare. The protesters, however, viewed the intervention differently.
They argued that Wangchuk was a consenting adult exercising a political choice and that the State had converted a concern for health into an instrument to interrupt a lawful protest. In their view, the right to peaceful dissent includes the freedom to choose the form and intensity of protest, including voluntary fasting.
The dispute therefore brought three constitutional guarantees into direct tension:
- Article 19(1)(a): the freedom of speech and expression, which includes political communication and dissent;
- Article 19(1)(b): the right to assemble peacefully;
- Article 21: the right to life and personal liberty, which includes bodily autonomy and decisional freedom.
The question before the Court was not whether the State valued life. The question was whether the State could protect life by overriding the very autonomy that constitutional liberty seeks to preserve.
July 19: Gitanjali Angmo’s moves Delhi HC to challenge state overreach
After Wangchuk was shifted to hospital, Dr Gitanjali Angmo approached the Delhi High Court challenging the manner in which he was removed from Jantar Mantar. As per LiveLaw, the petition raised several concerns:
- alleged use of force by police;
- denial of access to family members, lawyers and preferred doctors;
- shifting Wangchuk to a medical facility without his consent;
- interference with his choice of medical treatment;
- violation of bodily autonomy.
The petition did not argue that the State had no interest in Wangchuk’s health.
Rather, it questioned whether that interest could override an adult citizen’s voluntary decision regarding his own body. The constitutional argument was anchored in the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on privacy and autonomy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as intrinsic to liberty under Article 21, including decisional autonomy and the ability of individuals to make personal choices.
The petitioners argued that this principle extended to the choice of undertaking a hunger strike — a method of political expression historically associated with non-violent resistance. Appearing for Dr Angmo, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the State could not convert concern for health into a justification for overriding individual autonomy. As per Livelaw, his submission was that Wangchuk was a conscious adult who had voluntarily chosen the method of protest. The issue, he argued, was not whether fasting was medically advisable. The issue was whether the State could impose its own assessment of an individual’s welfare over that individual’s own decision.
Sibal questioned the circumstances surrounding Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar and argued that a peaceful protester could not be treated as someone incapable of making decisions merely because the State disagreed with those decisions.
The argument placed the case within the broader constitutional debate surrounding:
- informed consent;
- medical autonomy;
- dignity under Article 21;
- the right to dissent.
The petitioners emphasised that democratic rights become meaningful precisely when citizens are allowed to adopt unpopular or inconvenient forms of protest.
The state’s position: Representing the government, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) defended the police action. The State’s position was that the removal was not an attempt to suppress the protest but a necessary intervention to protect Wangchuk’s life. The ASG argued that the authorities were acting on medical advice and that the State could not remain passive when a person’s health was deteriorating after an extended fast. The government’s argument rested on a different understanding of Article 21.
While the petitioners relied on Article 21 as a guarantee of autonomy and choice, the State relied on Article 21 as imposing a positive obligation to protect life.
The government’s submission effectively was: A citizen’s autonomy is important, but the State cannot ignore a situation where there is a serious risk to life.
The court’s balancing act: The proceedings before Justice Mini Pushkarna exposed a difficult constitutional contradiction: a State that claims to protect life may, in doing so, risk undermining the very liberty that gives democratic protest its meaning.
The central issue before the Court was not simply whether Sonam Wangchuk required medical attention. It was whether the State could use concern for his health as a basis to override the choice of an adult citizen who had voluntarily adopted hunger strike as a form of political expression.
The petitioners’ argument went to the heart of the controversy — that the State had not acted with the same urgency when the protesters were demanding accountability over the NEET examination crisis, but became interventionist when it sought to regulate the manner in which that protest was being conducted. The grievance was not that the State cared about Wangchuk’s health; it was that the State appeared willing to engage with the physical consequences of the protest while remaining unresponsive to the institutional failures that had triggered it.
A crucial aspect of the challenge was the alleged expansion of the Delhi High Court’s earlier order. The Court’s initial intervention was limited to ensuring medical monitoring of Wangchuk’s condition. It did not direct that the hunger strike be discontinued, nor did it authorise the forcible removal of the protester from Jantar Mantar. The petitioners argued that the administration effectively converted a judicial direction intended as a safeguard into a justification for coercive State action.
The Court, however, accepted the State’s explanation that shifting Wangchuk to hospital was not arbitrary in the circumstances. It recognised that a prolonged hunger strike carries genuine medical risks and that the State cannot be expected to remain a passive observer when a person’s health is seriously compromised. Yet, this reasoning raises a larger constitutional concern.
If the State can intervene whenever it believes that an individual is making a self-harming political choice, the boundary between protection and paternalism becomes dangerously blurred. Democratic dissent is rarely comfortable. Protest movements often involve inconvenience, sacrifice and personal hardship. The constitutional protection of protest cannot depend upon whether the State considers the method of protest reasonable, appropriate or medically advisable.
A hunger strike is fundamentally different from violent or disruptive forms of protest. Its political force lies in voluntary self-denial. The protester does not impose physical harm upon others; instead, the protester places their own body at the centre of political communication. Historically, hunger strikes have been used precisely because conventional channels of accountability have failed or have been perceived to have failed.
The constitutional difficulty, therefore, was not whether the State had an interest in preserving life. It undoubtedly does. The more difficult question was whether the State could preserve life by overriding a conscious political choice made by an informed adult citizen. The controversy surrounding the administration of potassium during Wangchuk’s hospitalisation further exposed this tension. Medical intervention in such circumstances cannot be treated as a purely clinical matter. When a person’s medical condition is directly connected to an act of political protest, questions of consent, autonomy and transparency become inseparable from questions of healthcare.
The petitioners’ concern was not merely about the treatment administered. It was about who retained control over decisions affecting Wangchuk’s body after the State intervened. The State maintained that medical decisions were taken on professional advice and in response to his condition. However, the episode demonstrated the constitutional risks that arise when State power enters the doctor-patient relationship. A person does not surrender bodily autonomy merely because they become a patient.
The concerns regarding access to family members, lawyers and independent medical opinion raised an equally important issue. Wangchuk was not a person detained under criminal law. He had not been deprived of liberty through any judicial process. He was a citizen who had been participating in a public protest and was subsequently removed by State action.
In such circumstances, a hospital cannot become a space where constitutional protections are diluted. Medical care cannot operate as a zone of reduced liberty where communication, consultation and independent oversight become matters of administrative discretion.
The Court’s final approach reflected an attempt at compromise. It refused to hold the State action arbitrary and accepted the government’s justification for hospitalisation. At the same time, it did not recognise an unlimited State power to interfere with protest or personal choice. However, the larger constitutional question remains unresolved.
The danger in cases such as these is not always overt suppression of dissent. It is the possibility of a softer form of restriction — where the language of welfare, safety and protection gradually becomes a justification for limiting inconvenient political expression. Article 19 protects not only popular speech but also uncomfortable dissent. Article 21 protects not only life but also autonomy, dignity and the freedom to make personal choices. A constitutional democracy must therefore ask not merely whether State intervention is well-intentioned, but whether it is proportionate and necessary.
The Wangchuk litigation ultimately leaves behind a fundamental question: When a citizen uses their own body as the instrument of protest, does the State’s duty to protect life permit intervention — or does such intervention risk transforming protection into control?
The complete order may be viewed here:
After Wangchuk was shifted to hospital, Dr Gitanjali Angmo approached the Delhi High Court challenging the manner in which he was removed from Jantar Mantar. As per LiveLaw, the petition raised several concerns:
- alleged use of force by police;
- denial of access to family members, lawyers and preferred doctors;
- shifting Wangchuk to a medical facility without his consent;
- interference with his choice of medical treatment;
- violation of bodily autonomy.
The petition did not argue that the State had no interest in Wangchuk’s health.
Rather, it questioned whether that interest could override an adult citizen’s voluntary decision regarding his own body. The constitutional argument was anchored in the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on privacy and autonomy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as intrinsic to liberty under Article 21, including decisional autonomy and the ability of individuals to make personal choices.
The petitioners argued that this principle extended to the choice of undertaking a hunger strike — a method of political expression historically associated with non-violent resistance. Appearing for Dr Angmo, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the State could not convert concern for health into a justification for overriding individual autonomy. As per Livelaw, his submission was that Wangchuk was a conscious adult who had voluntarily chosen the method of protest. The issue, he argued, was not whether fasting was medically advisable. The issue was whether the State could impose its own assessment of an individual’s welfare over that individual’s own decision.
Sibal questioned the circumstances surrounding Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar and argued that a peaceful protester could not be treated as someone incapable of making decisions merely because the State disagreed with those decisions.
The argument placed the case within the broader constitutional debate surrounding:
- informed consent;
- medical autonomy;
- dignity under Article 21;
- the right to dissent.
The petitioners emphasised that democratic rights become meaningful precisely when citizens are allowed to adopt unpopular or inconvenient forms of protest.
The state’s position: Representing the government, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) defended the police action. The State’s position was that the removal was not an attempt to suppress the protest but a necessary intervention to protect Wangchuk’s life. The ASG argued that the authorities were acting on medical advice and that the State could not remain passive when a person’s health was deteriorating after an extended fast. The government’s argument rested on a different understanding of Article 21.
While the petitioners relied on Article 21 as a guarantee of autonomy and choice, the State relied on Article 21 as imposing a positive obligation to protect life.
The government’s submission effectively was: A citizen’s autonomy is important, but the State cannot ignore a situation where there is a serious risk to life.
The court’s balancing act: The proceedings before Justice Mini Pushkarna exposed a difficult constitutional contradiction: a State that claims to protect life may, in doing so, risk undermining the very liberty that gives democratic protest its meaning.
The central issue before the Court was not simply whether Sonam Wangchuk required medical attention. It was whether the State could use concern for his health as a basis to override the choice of an adult citizen who had voluntarily adopted hunger strike as a form of political expression.
The petitioners’ argument went to the heart of the controversy — that the State had not acted with the same urgency when the protesters were demanding accountability over the NEET examination crisis, but became interventionist when it sought to regulate the manner in which that protest was being conducted. The grievance was not that the State cared about Wangchuk’s health; it was that the State appeared willing to engage with the physical consequences of the protest while remaining unresponsive to the institutional failures that had triggered it.
A crucial aspect of the challenge was the alleged expansion of the Delhi High Court’s earlier order. The Court’s initial intervention was limited to ensuring medical monitoring of Wangchuk’s condition. It did not direct that the hunger strike be discontinued, nor did it authorise the forcible removal of the protester from Jantar Mantar. The petitioners argued that the administration effectively converted a judicial direction intended as a safeguard into a justification for coercive State action.
The Court, however, accepted the State’s explanation that shifting Wangchuk to hospital was not arbitrary in the circumstances. It recognised that a prolonged hunger strike carries genuine medical risks and that the State cannot be expected to remain a passive observer when a person’s health is seriously compromised. Yet, this reasoning raises a larger constitutional concern.
If the State can intervene whenever it believes that an individual is making a self-harming political choice, the boundary between protection and paternalism becomes dangerously blurred. Democratic dissent is rarely comfortable. Protest movements often involve inconvenience, sacrifice and personal hardship. The constitutional protection of protest cannot depend upon whether the State considers the method of protest reasonable, appropriate or medically advisable.
A hunger strike is fundamentally different from violent or disruptive forms of protest. Its political force lies in voluntary self-denial. The protester does not impose physical harm upon others; instead, the protester places their own body at the centre of political communication. Historically, hunger strikes have been used precisely because conventional channels of accountability have failed or have been perceived to have failed.
The constitutional difficulty, therefore, was not whether the State had an interest in preserving life. It undoubtedly does. The more difficult question was whether the State could preserve life by overriding a conscious political choice made by an informed adult citizen. The controversy surrounding the administration of potassium during Wangchuk’s hospitalisation further exposed this tension. Medical intervention in such circumstances cannot be treated as a purely clinical matter. When a person’s medical condition is directly connected to an act of political protest, questions of consent, autonomy and transparency become inseparable from questions of healthcare.
The petitioners’ concern was not merely about the treatment administered. It was about who retained control over decisions affecting Wangchuk’s body after the State intervened. The State maintained that medical decisions were taken on professional advice and in response to his condition. However, the episode demonstrated the constitutional risks that arise when State power enters the doctor-patient relationship. A person does not surrender bodily autonomy merely because they become a patient.
The concerns regarding access to family members, lawyers and independent medical opinion raised an equally important issue. Wangchuk was not a person detained under criminal law. He had not been deprived of liberty through any judicial process. He was a citizen who had been participating in a public protest and was subsequently removed by State action.
In such circumstances, a hospital cannot become a space where constitutional protections are diluted. Medical care cannot operate as a zone of reduced liberty where communication, consultation and independent oversight become matters of administrative discretion.
The Court’s final approach reflected an attempt at compromise. It refused to hold the State action arbitrary and accepted the government’s justification for hospitalisation. At the same time, it did not recognise an unlimited State power to interfere with protest or personal choice. However, the larger constitutional question remains unresolved.
The danger in cases such as these is not always overt suppression of dissent. It is the possibility of a softer form of restriction — where the language of welfare, safety and protection gradually becomes a justification for limiting inconvenient political expression. Article 19 protects not only popular speech but also uncomfortable dissent. Article 21 protects not only life but also autonomy, dignity and the freedom to make personal choices. A constitutional democracy must therefore ask not merely whether State intervention is well-intentioned, but whether it is proportionate and necessary.
The Wangchuk litigation ultimately leaves behind a fundamental question: When a citizen uses their own body as the instrument of protest, does the State’s duty to protect life permit intervention — or does such intervention risk transforming protection into control?
The complete order may be viewed here:
July 20: The protest moves towards parliament
While the legal challenge over Sonam Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar was being argued before the Delhi High Court, the movement on the ground entered a new phase. The protest, which had begun around demands for accountability over the NEET examination crisis, had by then grown into a larger mobilisation involving students, civil society groups and supporters from across the country. The proposed “Chalo Sansad” march on July 20, 2026 was intended to take these demands directly to Parliament, with protesters seeking accountability over alleged examination irregularities and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
The choice of destination was deeply symbolic. For the protesters, Parliament represented the institution answerable to citizens. The march was projected not as an attempt to obstruct legislative functioning, but as an assertion of the democratic right to place grievances before elected representatives. However, for the administration, the timing of the march — coinciding with the opening day of Parliament’s Monsoon Session — raised concerns regarding security, crowd management and the protection of high-security government installations.
By the evening of July 19, the hours preceding the march saw central Delhi transformed into a heavily controlled zone. Reporting from The Indian Express described Jantar Mantar as witnessing an unprecedented security build-up, with riot-control vehicles, barricades and large deployments of Delhi Police personnel across key areas of the capital. IE reported that more than 1,200 Delhi Police personnel were deployed around VIP areas and Delhi borders, while additional forces were positioned around Parliament and routes leading to it.
According to The Indian Express, the protest site was overflowing with students and supporters, with footpaths lined with tents housing those who had joined the hunger strike for days and weeks. Protesters gathered under banners and slogans, while volunteers prepared for the next day’s march. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke appealed for discipline and repeatedly emphasised that the success of the protest depended on maintaining peace, conveying a message reportedly also given by Sonam Wangchuk from hospital.
The administration, however, treated the proposed march as a potential security challenge. Delhi Police stated that no permission had been sought or granted for a procession towards Parliament. A prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 was imposed in the New Delhi district, restricting gatherings and processions. In a public advisory, police warned that unauthorised marches and assemblies would invite legal action, including proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The invocation of Section 163 became one of the central points of contestation. While authorities justified the restrictions on the basis of Parliament security and public order, protesters questioned whether preventive powers were being used to regulate a peaceful political demonstration rather than respond to any actual threat of violence.
The constitutional difficulty with such restrictions is not whether the State can regulate public assemblies. It undoubtedly can. The right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) is subject to reasonable restrictions. However, the repeated use of preventive orders raises a larger question: whether administrative convenience and security concerns are being expanded into a general power to prevent citizens from carrying their grievances into public spaces.
On July 20, as protesters prepared to begin the march, the security presence around Jantar Mantar intensified further. The Indian Express reported that multiple layers of barricades were installed, roads around Parliament were blocked and large contingents of police and paramilitary personnel were deployed. The report stated that additional officers were called from different districts, with more than 2,000 paramilitary personnel deployed across New Delhi district.
A senior police officer, as reported by The Indian Express, told organisers that the possibility of a stampede was a concern and urged them to reconsider the movement of such a large crowd. The protesters responded that they had consistently maintained discipline and that the administration was using security concerns to prevent the march itself.
As the march began, thousands of protesters continued gathering despite rain and restrictions. According to Deccan Herald, citing PTI, some protesters attempting to reach the Jantar Mantar site from Mandi House alleged that police used force, including claims of lathi-charge. Delhi Police denied the allegations, stating on social media that “no such incident has taken place” and that the protest was being handled professionally. The conflicting accounts reflected the broader dispute over the proportionality of police action.
The authorities also temporarily restricted access to certain metro stations, including Janpath, Patel Chowk, Rajiv Chowk, Central Secretariat and Seva Teerth, citing security concerns. Roads leading towards Parliament were barricaded, and movement around central Delhi was tightly controlled.
For protesters, these measures represented the State’s attempt to contain a movement demanding accountability from those in power. They argued that a democracy cannot celebrate the right to protest in principle while restricting citizens whenever they attempt to approach the institutions they seek to question.
For the administration, the restrictions represented a legitimate exercise of responsibility to protect Parliament, maintain public order and prevent possible disorder. The Chalo Sansad march therefore became more than a dispute over one procession route. It brought into focus a recurring constitutional tension: whether the State’s responsibility to maintain order is being exercised to protect democracy, or whether it is being used to limit the very democratic expression that creates accountability.
While the legal challenge over Sonam Wangchuk’s removal from Jantar Mantar was being argued before the Delhi High Court, the movement on the ground entered a new phase. The protest, which had begun around demands for accountability over the NEET examination crisis, had by then grown into a larger mobilisation involving students, civil society groups and supporters from across the country. The proposed “Chalo Sansad” march on July 20, 2026 was intended to take these demands directly to Parliament, with protesters seeking accountability over alleged examination irregularities and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
The choice of destination was deeply symbolic. For the protesters, Parliament represented the institution answerable to citizens. The march was projected not as an attempt to obstruct legislative functioning, but as an assertion of the democratic right to place grievances before elected representatives. However, for the administration, the timing of the march — coinciding with the opening day of Parliament’s Monsoon Session — raised concerns regarding security, crowd management and the protection of high-security government installations.
By the evening of July 19, the hours preceding the march saw central Delhi transformed into a heavily controlled zone. Reporting from The Indian Express described Jantar Mantar as witnessing an unprecedented security build-up, with riot-control vehicles, barricades and large deployments of Delhi Police personnel across key areas of the capital. IE reported that more than 1,200 Delhi Police personnel were deployed around VIP areas and Delhi borders, while additional forces were positioned around Parliament and routes leading to it.
According to The Indian Express, the protest site was overflowing with students and supporters, with footpaths lined with tents housing those who had joined the hunger strike for days and weeks. Protesters gathered under banners and slogans, while volunteers prepared for the next day’s march. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke appealed for discipline and repeatedly emphasised that the success of the protest depended on maintaining peace, conveying a message reportedly also given by Sonam Wangchuk from hospital.
The administration, however, treated the proposed march as a potential security challenge. Delhi Police stated that no permission had been sought or granted for a procession towards Parliament. A prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 was imposed in the New Delhi district, restricting gatherings and processions. In a public advisory, police warned that unauthorised marches and assemblies would invite legal action, including proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The invocation of Section 163 became one of the central points of contestation. While authorities justified the restrictions on the basis of Parliament security and public order, protesters questioned whether preventive powers were being used to regulate a peaceful political demonstration rather than respond to any actual threat of violence.
The constitutional difficulty with such restrictions is not whether the State can regulate public assemblies. It undoubtedly can. The right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) is subject to reasonable restrictions. However, the repeated use of preventive orders raises a larger question: whether administrative convenience and security concerns are being expanded into a general power to prevent citizens from carrying their grievances into public spaces.
On July 20, as protesters prepared to begin the march, the security presence around Jantar Mantar intensified further. The Indian Express reported that multiple layers of barricades were installed, roads around Parliament were blocked and large contingents of police and paramilitary personnel were deployed. The report stated that additional officers were called from different districts, with more than 2,000 paramilitary personnel deployed across New Delhi district.
A senior police officer, as reported by The Indian Express, told organisers that the possibility of a stampede was a concern and urged them to reconsider the movement of such a large crowd. The protesters responded that they had consistently maintained discipline and that the administration was using security concerns to prevent the march itself.
As the march began, thousands of protesters continued gathering despite rain and restrictions. According to Deccan Herald, citing PTI, some protesters attempting to reach the Jantar Mantar site from Mandi House alleged that police used force, including claims of lathi-charge. Delhi Police denied the allegations, stating on social media that “no such incident has taken place” and that the protest was being handled professionally. The conflicting accounts reflected the broader dispute over the proportionality of police action.
The authorities also temporarily restricted access to certain metro stations, including Janpath, Patel Chowk, Rajiv Chowk, Central Secretariat and Seva Teerth, citing security concerns. Roads leading towards Parliament were barricaded, and movement around central Delhi was tightly controlled.
For protesters, these measures represented the State’s attempt to contain a movement demanding accountability from those in power. They argued that a democracy cannot celebrate the right to protest in principle while restricting citizens whenever they attempt to approach the institutions they seek to question.
For the administration, the restrictions represented a legitimate exercise of responsibility to protect Parliament, maintain public order and prevent possible disorder. The Chalo Sansad march therefore became more than a dispute over one procession route. It brought into focus a recurring constitutional tension: whether the State’s responsibility to maintain order is being exercised to protect democracy, or whether it is being used to limit the very democratic expression that creates accountability.
July 20: Negotiations and government outreach
Even as incidents of chaos were being reported, on July 20, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das announced on X that he, along with Ashutosh Ranka, was travelling to meet BJP president and senior Union Minister J.P. Nadda after receiving a communication from the government seeking talks. Das wrote: “It’s 11:52 AM. Ashutosh Ranka and I, on behalf of the Cockroach Janta Party, are on our way to meet JP Nadda. The government had reached out for talks in the morning. Our demands are clear. The youth have gathered in huge numbers.”
CJP representatives maintained that any engagement would have to address the core issues that had brought students to the streets — accountability for alleged examination irregularities, responsibility for failures in the examination system, and assurances that similar crises would not recur.
As per the report of The Hindu, the CJP rejected offers to meet the District Magistrate, a Union Government Secretary, and a Minister of State, insisting on talks with the Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister.
Even as incidents of chaos were being reported, on July 20, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das announced on X that he, along with Ashutosh Ranka, was travelling to meet BJP president and senior Union Minister J.P. Nadda after receiving a communication from the government seeking talks. Das wrote: “It’s 11:52 AM. Ashutosh Ranka and I, on behalf of the Cockroach Janta Party, are on our way to meet JP Nadda. The government had reached out for talks in the morning. Our demands are clear. The youth have gathered in huge numbers.”
CJP representatives maintained that any engagement would have to address the core issues that had brought students to the streets — accountability for alleged examination irregularities, responsibility for failures in the examination system, and assurances that similar crises would not recur.
As per the report of The Hindu, the CJP rejected offers to meet the District Magistrate, a Union Government Secretary, and a Minister of State, insisting on talks with the Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister.
Solidarity across India
As the Delhi protest continued, solidarity demonstrations emerged in several parts of the country. As reported by FinancialExpress.com, activists and students in cities including Hyderabad, Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur, and Ahilya Nagar have organized rallies to demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and to protest the forced hospitalization of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.
Mumbai: In Mumbai, the state’s restrictive approach to public assembly has turned the city into a theater of confrontation. Supporters gathered at Shivaji Park on July 19, 2026, after being denied permission to demonstrate at Azad Maidan or other locations in South Mumbai. According to The Indian Express, a senior police officer justified this denial by citing the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025, which prohibit protests on weekends and public holidays.
The atmosphere at Shivaji Park was charged, with Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray calling for a nationwide agitation. The Indian Express noted that Thackeray escalated the rhetoric, arguing that the demand for the Education Minister’s resignation was a “small issue” and that the broader struggle must be to “change the government”. During the protest, participants raised concerns that structural failures in the examination system are consistently harming the future of the nation’s youth.
The Mumbai Police’s response has been marked by a series of legal actions. The Indian Express reported that on July 18, the police registered two FIRs against protesters for violating the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025. Specifically:
- A case was filed at the Marine Drive Police Station against NCP (SP) student leaders for protesting outside the state secretariat.
- A second FIR was registered at the Azad Maidan Police Station against activist-writer Sudhir Dhawale and others for protesting near the Press Club, with charges including unlawful assembly and disobedience of public servant orders.
Pune: In Pune, the movement saw hundreds gather at Balgandharva Chowk to express solidarity with Wangchuk and demand systemic educational reforms. The Indian Express reported that the demonstration became tense when police moved to disperse the crowd, leading to the detention of several protesters who refused to comply with official instructions. Participants, including educators and students, emphasized that the NEET issue is a symptom of a larger lack of accountability within the government, stressing that the youth’s faith in the education system is at risk.
Bengaluru: Meanwhile, The Hindu reported that over 1,000 people gathered at Freedom Park in Bengaluru on July 19 to protest the NEET paper leak and the “deteriorating democratic system”. The gathering evolved into a forum for broader societal critique; actor Kishor Kumar urged attendees to ensure the momentum is not limited to NEET but extends to support for farmers, labourers, and other marginalized groups. Young participants, such as 13-year-old Sohan and student Kavya, highlighted a growing sense of disillusionment, questioning what the future holds if the state continues to evade accountability for its failures.
Support gatherings were also reported from:
- Hyderabad;
- Nagpur;
- Indore;
- Jammu;
- Guwahati;
As the Delhi protest continued, solidarity demonstrations emerged in several parts of the country. As reported by FinancialExpress.com, activists and students in cities including Hyderabad, Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur, and Ahilya Nagar have organized rallies to demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and to protest the forced hospitalization of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.
Mumbai: In Mumbai, the state’s restrictive approach to public assembly has turned the city into a theater of confrontation. Supporters gathered at Shivaji Park on July 19, 2026, after being denied permission to demonstrate at Azad Maidan or other locations in South Mumbai. According to The Indian Express, a senior police officer justified this denial by citing the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025, which prohibit protests on weekends and public holidays.
The atmosphere at Shivaji Park was charged, with Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray calling for a nationwide agitation. The Indian Express noted that Thackeray escalated the rhetoric, arguing that the demand for the Education Minister’s resignation was a “small issue” and that the broader struggle must be to “change the government”. During the protest, participants raised concerns that structural failures in the examination system are consistently harming the future of the nation’s youth.
The Mumbai Police’s response has been marked by a series of legal actions. The Indian Express reported that on July 18, the police registered two FIRs against protesters for violating the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025. Specifically:
- A case was filed at the Marine Drive Police Station against NCP (SP) student leaders for protesting outside the state secretariat.
- A second FIR was registered at the Azad Maidan Police Station against activist-writer Sudhir Dhawale and others for protesting near the Press Club, with charges including unlawful assembly and disobedience of public servant orders.
Pune: In Pune, the movement saw hundreds gather at Balgandharva Chowk to express solidarity with Wangchuk and demand systemic educational reforms. The Indian Express reported that the demonstration became tense when police moved to disperse the crowd, leading to the detention of several protesters who refused to comply with official instructions. Participants, including educators and students, emphasized that the NEET issue is a symptom of a larger lack of accountability within the government, stressing that the youth’s faith in the education system is at risk.
Bengaluru: Meanwhile, The Hindu reported that over 1,000 people gathered at Freedom Park in Bengaluru on July 19 to protest the NEET paper leak and the “deteriorating democratic system”. The gathering evolved into a forum for broader societal critique; actor Kishor Kumar urged attendees to ensure the momentum is not limited to NEET but extends to support for farmers, labourers, and other marginalized groups. Young participants, such as 13-year-old Sohan and student Kavya, highlighted a growing sense of disillusionment, questioning what the future holds if the state continues to evade accountability for its failures.
Support gatherings were also reported from:
- Hyderabad;
- Nagpur;
- Indore;
- Jammu;
- Guwahati;
July 20: Updates on the hunger strikes
Even after being shifted from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung Hospital, Sonam Wangchuk continued his hunger strike, making it clear that his decision to end the fast would depend not on his medical condition alone but on whether the larger concerns that triggered the movement received a political response.
On July 20, ahead of the proposed “Chalo Sansad” march, Wangchuk issued a handwritten note titled “WHEN WILL I END THE FAST….!”, laying down the circumstances under which he would withdraw his indefinite fast. As reported by The Times of India and other media outlets, the conditions focused on accountability for failures in the education system, particularly alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks.
Significantly, while the broader CJP movement had consistently raised the demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Wangchuk’s stated conditions for ending his fast did not specifically include the Education Minister’s resignation. Instead, he framed the issue in terms of institutional accountability and corrective action.
Wangchuk stated that he would end the fast if the government accepted responsibility for the “recent failures in the education system”, including alleged paper leaks. Alternatively, he said the fast would end if he and CJP leadership were able to reach Parliament and receive assurances from Members of Parliament and leaders of various political parties that the issues raised by the protesters would be taken up during the Monsoon Session.
He also stated that if his health or circumstances prevented him from participating in the march, MPs and political leaders should visit him at the hospital and provide similar assurances.
The conditions reflected a shift in focus from the immediate symbolism of the hunger strike to the larger political objective of securing parliamentary attention on the education crisis. Wangchuk’s message emphasised that the protest was not centred around one individual but around the concerns of students affected by alleged failures in the examination system.
In a message shared through his wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, Wangchuk reiterated that he was not the “cause” of the movement but merely a voice for young people who were seeking accountability. Angmo, speaking outside Safdarjung Hospital after the Delhi High Court hearing, said that the proposed march to Parliament would continue and that Wangchuk had consistently maintained that the movement belonged to the youth.
Meanwhile, Wangchuk’s health remained under medical supervision. A health bulletin issued by Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) and Safdarjung Hospital on July 20 stated that he continued to receive medical care and that his vital parameters were stable, but his blood parameters required close observation. The hospital stated that continued clinical monitoring and medical intervention remained necessary, with a multidisciplinary team supervising his condition.
Alongside the broader mobilisation, students associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA) also undertook hunger strikes in solidarity with the movement. The three student activists, Neha, Manish and Aameen, concluded their hunger strike after 23 days. Their decision came following an appeal by a delegation comprising parliamentarians, civil society representatives and public figures, who urged them to continue the struggle through parliamentary engagement and public campaigns rather than through continued fasting.
AISA stated that the students had suffered significant physical consequences during the fast, including substantial weight loss and dangerously low blood sugar levels. Their withdrawal marked a transition in one phase of the student-led protest, even as the broader mobilisation continued through the march towards Parliament.
Even after being shifted from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung Hospital, Sonam Wangchuk continued his hunger strike, making it clear that his decision to end the fast would depend not on his medical condition alone but on whether the larger concerns that triggered the movement received a political response.
On July 20, ahead of the proposed “Chalo Sansad” march, Wangchuk issued a handwritten note titled “WHEN WILL I END THE FAST….!”, laying down the circumstances under which he would withdraw his indefinite fast. As reported by The Times of India and other media outlets, the conditions focused on accountability for failures in the education system, particularly alleged examination irregularities and question paper leaks.
Significantly, while the broader CJP movement had consistently raised the demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Wangchuk’s stated conditions for ending his fast did not specifically include the Education Minister’s resignation. Instead, he framed the issue in terms of institutional accountability and corrective action.
Wangchuk stated that he would end the fast if the government accepted responsibility for the “recent failures in the education system”, including alleged paper leaks. Alternatively, he said the fast would end if he and CJP leadership were able to reach Parliament and receive assurances from Members of Parliament and leaders of various political parties that the issues raised by the protesters would be taken up during the Monsoon Session.
He also stated that if his health or circumstances prevented him from participating in the march, MPs and political leaders should visit him at the hospital and provide similar assurances.
The conditions reflected a shift in focus from the immediate symbolism of the hunger strike to the larger political objective of securing parliamentary attention on the education crisis. Wangchuk’s message emphasised that the protest was not centred around one individual but around the concerns of students affected by alleged failures in the examination system.
In a message shared through his wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, Wangchuk reiterated that he was not the “cause” of the movement but merely a voice for young people who were seeking accountability. Angmo, speaking outside Safdarjung Hospital after the Delhi High Court hearing, said that the proposed march to Parliament would continue and that Wangchuk had consistently maintained that the movement belonged to the youth.
Meanwhile, Wangchuk’s health remained under medical supervision. A health bulletin issued by Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) and Safdarjung Hospital on July 20 stated that he continued to receive medical care and that his vital parameters were stable, but his blood parameters required close observation. The hospital stated that continued clinical monitoring and medical intervention remained necessary, with a multidisciplinary team supervising his condition.
Alongside the broader mobilisation, students associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA) also undertook hunger strikes in solidarity with the movement. The three student activists, Neha, Manish and Aameen, concluded their hunger strike after 23 days. Their decision came following an appeal by a delegation comprising parliamentarians, civil society representatives and public figures, who urged them to continue the struggle through parliamentary engagement and public campaigns rather than through continued fasting.
AISA stated that the students had suffered significant physical consequences during the fast, including substantial weight loss and dangerously low blood sugar levels. Their withdrawal marked a transition in one phase of the student-led protest, even as the broader mobilisation continued through the march towards Parliament.
Conclusion: From examination failure to a crisis of accountability
The July 20 developments marked a decisive shift in the nature of the education protest. What began as a demand from students affected by alleged examination irregularities became a wider confrontation over how the State responds when institutional failures generate public anger.
The central demand of the movement remained unchanged: accountability for the failures that undermined confidence in India’s competitive examination system. The protests were not merely about the cancellation of an examination or the consequences of a paper leak. For thousands of students, the issue represented a deeper fear that years of preparation, personal sacrifice and aspirations could be undermined by failures within institutions responsible for ensuring fairness.
The escalation of the movement, however, shifted attention from the original grievance to the State’s handling of dissent. Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike became the symbol of this transition. The events surrounding the Chalo Sansad march further exposed this tension. The government’s decision to prevent protesters from moving towards Parliament was defended on grounds of security and public order. Yet, for protesters, the restrictions raised a fundamental concern: if citizens cannot approach elected representatives with grievances affecting millions of young people, where does democratic accountability occur?
Courtesy: Sabrang India
The July 20 developments marked a decisive shift in the nature of the education protest. What began as a demand from students affected by alleged examination irregularities became a wider confrontation over how the State responds when institutional failures generate public anger.
The central demand of the movement remained unchanged: accountability for the failures that undermined confidence in India’s competitive examination system. The protests were not merely about the cancellation of an examination or the consequences of a paper leak. For thousands of students, the issue represented a deeper fear that years of preparation, personal sacrifice and aspirations could be undermined by failures within institutions responsible for ensuring fairness.
The escalation of the movement, however, shifted attention from the original grievance to the State’s handling of dissent. Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike became the symbol of this transition. The events surrounding the Chalo Sansad march further exposed this tension. The government’s decision to prevent protesters from moving towards Parliament was defended on grounds of security and public order. Yet, for protesters, the restrictions raised a fundamental concern: if citizens cannot approach elected representatives with grievances affecting millions of young people, where does democratic accountability occur?
Courtesy: Sabrang India
