NEET Protests: Outrage on Screens, Silences in Court: Judiciary Defers Action on Delhi Police Excesses
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
In an era where state power is broadcast instantly, footage of baton charges, tear gas, and wounded youth circulating online has turned street-level clashes into a national storm. Following the July 20 "Chalo Sansad" demonstration organised by the youth-driven Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), graphic clips showing student protesters clashing with police barricades spread swiftly across social networks.
Inside India’s courts, however, a strikingly detached legal reality took shape.
Within 48 hours of the clashes, both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court delivered blunt oral rebuffs to urgent Public Interest Litigations (PILs) demanding swift intervention. The sharp contrast between what citizens witnessed on their screens and what judges proved willing to examine in real time has ignited an intense debate over the judiciary's role during severe civil unrest.
"Don't Drag Us In"
When lawyers rushed to mention the emergency petition before the Delhi High Court on July 21—citing severe injuries suffered by student protesters—the bench showed immediate hesitation. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya flatly declined an out-of-turn hearing, remarking:
"Don't drag the Court into all this. It will come up tomorrow."
The High Court did issue formal notices to the Delhi Police and Union Government the following day, ordering the preservation of all CCTV footage and call logs. Yet, by setting the next hearing for 11 September, the court established a seven-week procedural interlude that effectively removed the judiciary from the immediate crisis.
"We Don't Have Time"
The Supreme Court’s rejection on Wednesday morning was even more explicit. Mentioning the matter before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, counsel pleaded for the apex court to take suo motu cognisance and evaluate video evidence.
Chief Justice Kant cut the advocate short:
"Don't waste our time, and don't waste your time… We are not interested in videos. We don't have time to watch."
While jurists argue that unverified digital clips cannot bypass formal evidentiary procedures, protesting students view this deliberate distance as an abandonment of constitutional protection—leaving the legal clock to tick slowly into autumn while street tension mounts.
