NEET-UG Protest Case: Petitioner Demands Accountability From Police, Centre

The primary petitioner in the case linked to the July 20 crackdown on NEET-UG protesters in Delhi has filed a rejoinder in the Supreme Court, arguing that the conduct of the Delhi Police and the Union Home Ministry was not only unconstitutional but also "manifestly criminal in character."

The rejoinder, filed by advocate-petitioner Shailendra Mani Tripathi, comes days after the apex court quashed the FIRs against the protesters. It responds to a mid-August police affidavit and raises several concerns about the handling of the demonstration, which was largely attended by students.

Among the issues highlighted are the "pre-emptive and militarised" deployment of paramilitary forces, the alleged deliberate introduction of "chaotic elements" into the peaceful procession, and the use of force including lathis, pellet guns, tear gas, and water cannons. The petitioner argues that clear accountability must be fixed at the level of senior police officers and the political executive, specifically the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, whose policy directives governed the deployment.

While the Supreme Court has already constituted a High-Powered Enquiry Committee to examine the allegations, the rejoinder contends that a larger constitutional question remains unanswered: whether the government can use prohibitory powers to turn the constitutional right to protest into a privilege granted only with official permission.

The petitioner asserts that the right to peaceful assembly originates from the Constitution, not from police permission. The police's role is to facilitate the peaceful exercise of constitutional rights while ensuring public order. The rejoinder argues that the State's power to regulate cannot be used to extinguish fundamental freedoms and urges the court to frame clear judicial safeguards governing police power against peaceful assemblies.

It further argues that "law and order" cannot be used as a blanket justification for every restriction. A distinction must be made between a genuine and immediate threat to public order and a mere apprehension of inconvenience. The rejoinder states that inconvenience is not synonymous with violence, and dissent is not synonymous with disorder.

The petitioner also countered specific police justifications, including the use of spotters to identify anti-social elements, which he claims has no statutory backing under the Delhi Police Act, 1978, or the BNSS. He questioned the deployment of personnel in civilian attire without name tags and noted that the police affidavit did not attach orders authorising the use of force or provide intelligence inputs justifying the large-scale deployment of Central Armed Police Forces.

Regarding surveillance, the rejoinder raised concerns about the involvement of private commercial entities in sovereign policing functions at Jantar Mantar. It argued that this convergence renders the Right to Information and democratic accountability toothless, giving profit-driven corporations unchecked authority over citizens' civil liberties.

The petitioner also pointed to a flaw in the police's facial recognition claims. While police said the technology identified 2,873 individuals with criminal antecedents, a media investigation revealed that in 25 out of 205 major cases, the accused were already in prison. This, the rejoinder contends, undermines the accuracy of the remaining identifications and exposes innocent students to intense police scrutiny.