Students across India took to the streets in late June and early July 2026, staging large-scale protests against alleged irregularities in national competitive examinations and the violent police response in Delhi. Demonstrators gathered at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, with similar gatherings reported in major cities including Lucknow, Mumbai, Patna, Raipur, and Varanasi. The protests, initially sparked by claims that exam papers had leaked, escalated into broader calls for transparency, accountability, and an end to perceived authoritarianism. The movement gained momentum after the police forcefully dispersed a protest on June 29, using tear gas and lathi charges, which led to widespread injuries and drew sharp criticism from opposition leaders and civil society groups. The protests began on June 6, when members of the Cockroach Janta Party, a grassroots political group, initiated demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. They alleged that the minister was responsible for the leak of question papers for national competitive exams, which affected millions of students. Over the following weeks, the movement grew, drawing participation from tens of thousands of young people. On June 29, thousands joined a march to Parliament, only to face a brutal police crackdown. Security forces deployed tear gas, lathi charges, and water cannons, resulting in dozens of injuries. The incident sparked outrage, with many activists and citizens condemning the use of excessive force. Social media played a central role in amplifying the protests, with users sharing memes, videos, and satirical content that mocked both the government and the police. Humor became a tool for resistance, with creators parodying popular culture and political figures. For instance, a meme referencing the Hindi film Dhurandhar was used to critique the government's handling of the exam paper leaks, much like the film had previously been used to explain the demonetization policy in 2016. Other posts ridiculed the idea of unwavering support for the ruling party, with one user quoting a fictional character inspired by BJP MP Kangana Ranaut. Cartoonists and artists also contributed, offering sharp critiques of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policies and the government’s approach to dissent. Opposition leaders, including Congress president Rahul Gandhi, publicly endorsed the protests, calling for an apology from Prime Minister Modi for the police violence. Gandhi argued that students were simply demanding what the country owed them and urged the government to address the issue of accountability. Meanwhile, BJP workers reportedly expressed concern over the growing unrest, fearing that the protests could undermine the stability of the administration. The situation further complicated when the Supreme Court rejected an urgent plea seeking to investigate the police’s use of force during the June 29 demonstration. Chief Justice Surya Kant dismissed the request, stating that the court was “not interested in videos.” This decision fueled accusations of judicial bias and lack of responsiveness to public grievances. In parallel, the Delhi High Court issued notices to the Union government and police, requesting responses to several public interest litigation cases alleging excessive force during the protests. These legal developments underscored the deepening tension between the authorities and the demonstrators. At the same time, legislative activity in Madhya Pradesh highlighted the broader political climate, as the state assembly passed a Uniform Civil Code bill aimed at banning polygamy and regulating live-in relationships. While the law was framed as a progressive measure, critics argued that it disproportionately targeted religious minorities and ignored the cultural practices of indigenous communities. As the protests continue, the focus remains on the unresolved issues of academic integrity and police conduct. With the government maintaining a firm stance and the opposition pushing for greater transparency, the situation appears poised for further escalation. The outcome of these tensions will likely shape the trajectory of public discourse and governance in the months ahead.
3 reports
Scroll.inIndependentProgressiveFactual 88Objective 72yesterdayYouth-led protests across India continue over allegations of irregularities in competitive exams and police brutality during demonstrations. Opposition lawmakers, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, have criticized the government and demanded accountability, with Gandhi calling for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's apology. Protests were reported in multiple cities, with police using force such as water cannons and tear gas. The Supreme Court rejected an urgent plea regarding police conduct, while the Delhi High Court requested responses on alleged excessive force. Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh Assembly passed a Uniform Civil Code bill, excluding Adivasi communities.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the protests as justified student activism, highlights criticism of the government and police, and emphasizes calls for accountability and reform. It presents opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi as advocates for the protesters, while downplaying the government's stance. The focus
Why factuality (88): The article covers multiple aspects of the protests, including the involvement of different cities and political figures. It accurately reports on the use of police force and the reactions from various parties, maintaining consistency with other sources. However, it omits some specific details prese
Why objectivity (72): The article shows a clear alignment with the opposition's perspective, particularly through quotes from Rahul Gandhi and criticism of the police actions. While informative, it lacks balance by underrepresenting the government's position and focusing more on the protesters' grievances.
The Indian ExpressIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 702 days agoThe headline 'Can’t have sabka vishwas with tear gas and lathi' from The Indian Express critiques the use of force by authorities against protesters, suggesting that trust ('sabka vishwas') cannot coexist with violent tactics like tear gas and batons ('lathi'). The article likely discusses recent protests where law enforcement used such methods, raising concerns about governance and public confidence.
Bias read (Progressive): The headline implies criticism of state violence and emphasizes the erosion of public trust, which aligns with left-leaning perspectives that often critique authoritarian measures and advocate for democratic accountability. The phrasing suggests a moral judgment against the use of force in managing骚
Why factuality (85): The article references the protests against the education minister and the police response, aligning with the cross-source consensus. It mentions specific events such as the hunger strike of Sonam Wangchuk and the use of tear gas and lathis, but lacks detailed sourcing for these claims. The article
Why objectivity (70): The tone is somewhat critical of the government and supportive of the protesters, using phrases like 'brutal crackdown' and highlighting the humor in the situation. This suggests a slight bias towards the protesters rather than presenting both sides equally.
Hindustan TimesIndependentCenter8 hr. agoAllegations of police brutality during protests organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Delhi have reignited discussions about the legal boundaries governing the use of force by law enforcement during crowd dispersal. While Indian law permits the police to maintain public order, courts have emphasized that such actions must adhere to constitutional principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. However, the legal framework remains fragmented, with operational guidelines for crowd control—such as lathi-charges and tear gas—being dictated primarily by state-specific police laws, manuals, and executive orders. This lack of uniformity leads to differing practices across regions and results in case-by-case determinations regarding the use of force and accountability. The Constitution guarantees the right to protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), but these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state for maintaining public order, security, and national integrity.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced overview of the legal and constitutional aspects surrounding police use of force during protests. It discusses both the rights of protesters and the limitations placed on them by the state, referencing judicial rulings and legal frameworks without showing clear favor.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
India
