Misquoted: CJI on 'don't have time to watch videos' remark amid protest crackdown

The Delhi government has announced that it will not take any further adverse legal action against individuals who participated in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protests over alleged irregularities in the NEET (UG) examination, although those with criminal antecedents will remain subject to legal consequences. The directive, issued by the Delhi Home Department, clarifies that the government does not intend to pursue additional charges or initiate new proceedings against protesters. The order states that the matter will be treated as closed, with no future legal action anticipated. However, the protection extends only to those without prior criminal records, as per a Supreme Court mandate. The decision follows a series of protests that began in late June 2026, when the CJP initiated a campaign demanding the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged misconduct in the conduct of competitive exams. The movement gained momentum, culminating in a 37-day-long agitation centered around Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. During the protests, thousands of students and activists marched toward Parliament, only to be intercepted by police forces, leading to clashes and the use of pellet guns, tear gas, and lathi charges. Over 2,873 individuals were identified by the Delhi Police through CCTV footage as having allegedly attacked officers and damaged property during the July 20 "Chalo Sansad" rally. Of these, nearly a thousand were found to possess criminal records. The Delhi Police had previously registered 13 First Information Reports (FIRs) related to the violence during the protests. The government’s current directive aims to conclude these legal matters, with an emphasis on expediting the review of existing arrests and the potential release of detainees. The order was approved by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and aligns with the broader context of the Supreme Court’s interventions in the matter. The court has repeatedly emphasized the need for proportionality in the use of force and has directed authorities to ensure medical treatment for those injured during the protests, particularly those affected by pellet gun injuries. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and other leaders have expressed concern over ongoing harassment of students who participated in the protests. Dipke accused the government of continuing to threaten and intimidate participants, claiming that the youth could launch another agitation if their grievances remained unresolved. He specifically called for action against those responsible for ordering the use of pellet guns during the July 20 clashes, including figures like Amit Shah. Dipke warned that the government’s failure to uphold its previous assurances, such as the promise of no legal action against protesters, could lead to renewed unrest. His comments were delivered after the CJP called off its 37-day protest following the resignation of Pradhan and the formation of a task force to reform the examination system. The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape surrounding the protests. In multiple rulings, the court has directed the government to preserve records of the ammunition used by the Rapid Action Force (RAF) during the incidents and to ensure proper medical treatment for injured protesters. The court has also scrutinized the legality of pellet gun usage, noting that while such tools are permitted under police rules in exceptional circumstances, their deployment must adhere to a graded use-of-force framework. The court has emphasized that the use of force must not exceed what is necessary to manage the situation, and that excessive force is both unconstitutional and unlawful. The CJP has continued to push for the formal withdrawal of all FIRs rather than merely closing them, arguing that the current government order fails to fully honor the agreements reached during the July 25 Jantar Mantar meeting. Spokesperson Saurav Das criticized the Delhi government for misrepresenting the terms of the agreement, insisting that the FIRs should be formally withdrawn rather than left open for future prosecution. Das warned that any perceived breach of the agreement could trigger renewed protests, emphasizing the urgency of resolving the issue before the patience of the youth is exhausted. Meanwhile, the government has reiterated its commitment to treating the matter as concluded, with no further legal action planned. The order underscores the distinction between protecting legitimate protesters and enforcing the rule of law against those with criminal histories. This stance reflects a broader trend among several states governed by the ruling party, which have also moved to withdraw FIRs and release detainees in response to public pressure and judicial directives. The Delhi government’s decision is likely to be followed by similar actions in other regions, as the legal and political ramifications of the protests continue to unfold.