ON
← Back to feed
NEET protests: SC says SIT may be set up to probe police excesses
India🏛️ PoliticsCenter10 days ago

NEET protests: SC says SIT may be set up to probe police excesses

The Supreme Court of India has indicated that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) may be established to investigate alleged police excesses during the NEET protests, which were centered around irregularities in exams and a leaked question paper. The court emphasized the need for a fair, transparent, and thorough inquiry into incidents of violence involving both protesters and security forces. During the protests, clashes occurred between demonstrators and security personnel, including the use of batons and tear gas, as protesters demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The court reiterated that while the right to peaceful protest is protected, such agitations cannot justify excessive force by police. Legal representatives argued that while students generally do not engage in violence against police, some individuals involved in criminal activities may have participated in the unrest.

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear two fresh petitions on July 27 regarding alleged police excesses during student protests linked to the NEET exam controversy. The decision comes after the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, clarified that no formal writ petition had previously been filed in the court over the July 20 crackdown on protesters in Delhi. The court’s bench, consisting of Justice Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, accepted the petitions, which allege that security forces used excessive force against students demonstrating against alleged examination paper leaks and educational reforms. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan informed the bench that the petitions had been officially filed and assigned diary numbers. He emphasized the ongoing nature of the issue, stating that police continued to use excessive force against minors, urging the court to intervene. The CJI acknowledged the urgency and directed that the petitions be listed for hearing on July 27. This follows a previous clarification from the CJI, who refuted media reports suggesting the court had rejected pleas over the incident. The CJI stated that no petition had been filed until then, and that the court had only received representations, which are not equivalent to legal petitions. Earlier in the day, the CJI criticized misleading media reports that claimed the court had refused to entertain pleas regarding the July 20 police action. He noted that the registry confirmed no pages had been filed in the Supreme Court, and that the matter had been raised as a representation rather than a formal petition. The CJI expressed concern over the accuracy of such reports, emphasizing that the media bears responsibility for ensuring factual integrity. His remarks referred to Wednesday’s proceedings, where Advocate Narendra Mishra had sought suo motu cognisance of alleged police brutality during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led march. The bench had denied the request, noting that no petition had been filed and that it was not interested in videos unless accompanied by a formal petition. The CJP-led march on July 20, which followed weeks of protests and a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, saw thousands of demonstrators attempt to reach Parliament. They demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged examination paper leaks and calls for reform in the examination system. As protesters tried to cross multiple barricades, clashes erupted between demonstrators and security personnel, resulting in the use of lathis and tear gas to disperse the crowd. The situation escalated, leading to widespread concerns about the use of force by law enforcement. In response to the ongoing unrest, the Supreme Court has directed Delhi and all state governments to release all arrested or detained protesters under the age of 18 with no criminal records. The court has also ordered the preservation of all digital evidence, including CCTV footage, facial recognition data, and drone recordings. These materials, along with personal data of protesters, must remain confidential and not be disclosed publicly. The court emphasized the need for a fair and independent probe into all allegations of police excesses against NEET students, stressing that the law must address violations of established protocols. The court has also mandated that states provide responses by Monday regarding incidents of violence during the protests. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the actions of the police, asserting that students generally do not engage in violence against law enforcement. However, he acknowledged that some individuals with criminal backgrounds, including those involved in murder, rape, and drug-related offenses, may have infiltrated the protests and contributed to the violence. The court has instructed that investigations be conducted to determine whether the attacks on 250 police personnel were carried out by students or by others. Justice Joymalya Bagchi cautioned against attributing violence to an entire movement, highlighting that there are always individuals who seek to discredit peaceful gatherings. The court has also directed that the findings of the inquiry should help establish a protocol for managing similar situations in the future. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has instructed that a Special Investigation Team may be formed to conduct a thorough and transparent probe into all incidents of violence during the protests. The team will be tasked with examining the circumstances surrounding the alleged police excesses and determining accountability.

4 reports

Hindustan Times logoHindustan TimesIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 7014 days ago
Supreme Court to hear pleas on alleged police excesses during student protest

The Supreme Court of India agreed to hear two new petitions regarding alleged police excesses during the July 20 crackdown on student protests in the national capital. These petitions were filed after Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that no formal writ petition had previously been submitted to the court. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranararayanan informed the court that the petitions had been formally filed and assigned diary numbers, emphasizing the ongoing nature of police violence against students. The CJI criticized media reports that claimed the court had rejected such pleas, stating that no petition had been filed until recently. The court directed that the petitions be listed for hearing on Monday, highlighting concerns over misinformation and the need for judicial intervention.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of legal developments without overtly favoring any political stance. While the issue of police conduct during protests is politically sensitive, the reporting focuses on procedural aspects of the Supreme Court's actions rather than taking a clear ideological sl

Why factuality (90): The article accurately reflects the Supreme Court's handling of the petitions regarding police excesses and clarifies the confusion around the filing of these petitions. It aligns well with the primary source document and other articles.

Why objectivity (70): The article is somewhat biased in tone, emphasizing the urgency of the situation and the need for control, which might suggest a preference for the students' perspective over the police's actions.

Hindustan Times logoHindustan TimesIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 8510 days ago
NEET protests: SC says SIT may be set up to probe police excesses

The Supreme Court of India has indicated that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) may be established to investigate alleged police excesses during the NEET protests, which were centered around irregularities in exams and a leaked question paper. The court emphasized the need for a fair, transparent, and thorough inquiry into incidents of violence involving both protesters and security forces. During the protests, clashes occurred between demonstrators and security personnel, including the use of batons and tear gas, as protesters demanded the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The court reiterated that while the right to peaceful protest is protected, such agitations cannot justify excessive force by police. Legal representatives argued that while students generally do not engage in violence against police, some individuals involved in criminal activities may have participated in the unrest.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the Supreme Court's stance on the need for an impartial investigation into police conduct during the protests without overtly endorsing any particular political viewpoint. While the court criticizes police actions, it does not explicitly align with either the protesters' demands

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reflects the Supreme Court's indication of possibly forming a special investigation team to look into police excesses during the protests. However, it omits specific details about the release of minors and restrictions on coercive actions mentioned in the primary source.

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting facts without apparent bias. It avoids emotional language and provides a straightforward summary of the court's statements.

Times of India logoTimes of IndiaIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 7510 days ago
SC asks states to release student protesters under 18 with no criminal records

The Supreme Court of India has directed state governments and the Delhi Police to release all arrested or detained protesters under 18 with no criminal records and to preserve digital evidence related to the protests. The court emphasized the need for a fair and independent investigation into allegations of police excesses against NEET students, particularly regarding the use of pellet guns during demonstrations. The court also called for transparency in handling such incidents and requested responses from states where violence occurred during the protests. Legal representatives highlighted concerns over alleged assaults on protesters and police personnel, while the Solicitor General defended police actions and noted injuries sustained by officers.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the Supreme Court's directive and the opposing arguments from legal representatives and the Solicitor General. While the court's emphasis on accountability and due process suggests a progressive stance, the article does not overtly favor one side over the其他

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the SC's directive to release minors and the need for an independent investigation. However, it adds unverified claims about the use of an AK-47 in Bihar, which is not mentioned in the primary source document. Despite this, it generally aligns with the primary source a

Why objectivity (75): The article is somewhat neutral but includes speculative statements about the use of an AK-47, which could introduce bias. It quotes the SC's observations directly but occasionally uses phrases like 'whosoever committed excesses' that might imply a stance on the issue.

Times of India logoTimes of IndiaIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 7514 days ago
Jantar Mantar clash: SC to hear pleas on alleged police excesses on July 27

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear two petitions alleging excessive police action during student-led protests over the alleged NEET paper leak. The protests, which took place in multiple states including Delhi, involved clashes between demonstrators and security forces who used batons and tear gas. The petitions were filed by senior advocates Shyam Divan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, seeking an early hearing. Meanwhile, another bench of the Supreme Court emphasized the need for long-term reforms in the NEET examination system, urging the government to implement recommendations from the Radhakrishnan Committee and adopt the IIT model. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that the government is taking additional measures beyond the committee's recommendations to safeguard students' futures.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of both the legal proceedings involving the alleged police excesses and the broader reform discussions regarding the NEET examination system. It reports on the Supreme Court's decision to hear petitions, the involvement of various legal representatives, and a糅

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the Supreme Court agreeing to hear petitions regarding alleged police excesses against students during CJP protests. It mentions the dates, names of judges, and the nature of the protests. However, it does not explicitly mention the primary source document's reference

Why objectivity (75): The article presents the information neutrally but includes quotes from advocates requesting an early hearing, which may imply a slight bias towards the protesters' perspective. The tone remains mostly objective but could be slightly sympathetic to the students' cause.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories