Supreme Court Considers Independent Inquiry Into Police Action During NEET Protests

The Supreme Court's indication of an independent probe into police excesses during the NEET protests validates what the Cockroach Janta Party has maintained from day one: the state responded to students demanding accountability for a compromised exam with brute force rather than answers (The Hindu). Our party spearheaded these protests because the NEET-UG paper leaks shattered the faith of millions of aspirants in the examination system itself (The Hindu). The Court's order restraining coercive action against students without criminal antecedents and mandating the immediate release of arrested minors exposes the disproportionate nature of the police response (The Hindu). While the state deploys facial recognition technology to surveil peaceful protesters — a move our ally A.A. Rahim has rightly challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional — the actual culprits behind the paper leaks remain unaccountable (The Hindu). An independent investigation is the minimum first step toward justice.

The Cockroach Janta Party frames the Supreme Court's consideration of an independent probe as a validation of "police excesses," but the Court has only indicated it may constitute a team — it has not reached a finding of misconduct (The Hindu). The same order explicitly permits state authorities to proceed with investigations into existing FIRs registered during the protests, confirming the legal basis for police action (The Hindu). The restraint on coercive action applies only to students without criminal antecedents, a targeted safeguard rather than a blanket indictment of police conduct (The Hindu). Delhi Police deployed facial recognition technology as a legitimate investigative tool to identify individuals involved in unlawful assemblies across Delhi and several states, not to target peaceful dissent per se (The Hindu). The core issue remains the NEET-UG paper leaks, and police are actively pursuing those investigations alongside maintaining law and order.

The Delhi Police claims the Supreme Court's consideration of an independent probe is merely procedural, yet the Court's simultaneous orders — releasing all arrested minors and restraining coercive action against students without criminal antecedents — signal a prima facie view that the police response was disproportionate (The Hindu). The Police's defence of facial recognition deployment as a "legitimate investigative tool" ignores the core constitutional challenge: A.A. Rahim's petition argues this technology was used on peaceful protesters without any governing law, rendering it unconstitutional surveillance, not investigation (The Hindu). The Police also sidestep the central asymmetry: they pursue protesters with biometric dragnets while the NEET-UG paper leak masterminds remain unidentified.

The Cockroach Janta Party conflates the Court's protective orders for minors and students without antecedents with a finding of "disproportionate" force against all protesters; the order explicitly permits investigation of existing FIRs, confirming the legal basis for action against those who violated law (The Hindu). On facial recognition, the petition itself seeks a declaration that its use lacks a governing statute — a legislative gap, not proof of police illegality, and the technology was deployed to identify individuals in unlawful assemblies across multiple states (The Hindu). Delhi Police continues to pursue both the paper leak investigations and the protest-related offences; the Court's consideration of a probe is a judicial process, not a verdict, and we will cooperate fully with any inquiry constituted.