Supreme Court Refuses to Reconstitute High-Powered Committee Probing NEET Protest Violence

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday rejected requests to reconstitute a five member high powered enquiry committee (HPEC) tasked with examining allegations of police excesses and protester violence during recent student demonstrations in Delhi. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana stated that the committee, headed by former judge R Subhash Reddy, functions as an extended hand of the court and will not be changed based on presumptions of bias. The court noted that the committee will operate under its direct supervision and that any concerns regarding its functioning can be raised through open hearings.

During the proceedings, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued for the reconstitution of the panel, alleging a conflict of interest involving a member who is a former DGP of a north eastern state. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed these submissions. The bench clarified that the retired Meghalaya DGP was selected specifically because he was from a north eastern state, making him less likely to be proximate to mainland political parties. The court further ruled that while the HPEC can identify victims and make recommendations, it cannot order the registration of FIRs, as that power rests exclusively with the court.

The HPEC is authorized to receive documentary evidence, representations, and anonymous complaints. The court directed that a public notice be issued to allow individuals to submit viewpoints and evidence. Additionally, the bench ordered the Delhi Police to take immediate action on a specific FIR involving the intimidation of a 14 year old girl, stating that such cases cannot wait for the HPEC inquiry outcome.

While both reports cover the legal rulings, they emphasize different aspects of the hearing. The center leaning report focuses on the legal arguments regarding the committee's composition and the rejection of bias claims. In contrast, the center right leaning report emphasizes the limitations of the committee's powers regarding criminal investigations and the court's specific directive to protect a minor victim.