Supreme Court Sets Up Five-Member High Power Enquiry Committee On CJP Protest Violence

The Supreme Court, in Shailendra Mani vs Union of India (Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 280/2026 and connected matters), has ordered the creation of a powerful, independent enquiry mechanism to investigate allegations of violence and excessive force during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests across the country. The order, dated 18 August 2026 and uploaded on 20 August 2026, has far-reaching implications for police accountability, protest management and the protection of constitutional rights.

A three-judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr CJI Surya Kant, Hon’ble Mr Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Ms Justice V Mohana has constituted a High Power Enquiry Committee (HPEC) with five eminent members, headed by a former Judge of the Supreme Court. The Committee’s mandate spans alleged excesses by security forces, violence by protesters, compensation for injured persons on both sides, and systemic issues relating to the handling of public protests.

Background: Allegations Of Disproportionate Force Against Protesters

The petitions before the Supreme Court highlighted multiple incidents arising out of the CJP protests at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and several other locations nationwide. The core grievance placed before the Court was that peaceful protests were allegedly met with excessive and disproportionate force by the police, paramilitary and other security personnel.

The Bench recorded that the petitions and subsequent affidavits catalogued several types of alleged misconduct. These included claims that protest assemblies, described as peaceful, were subjected to harsh crowd-control tactics that went beyond what could be justified in law and under the Constitution.

Specific Allegations Against Police and Security Forces

The pleadings described a pattern of conduct that, according to the petitioners, showed systemic misuse of force. The following broad instances were highlighted:

  • Use of pellet guns against unarmed and peaceful demonstrators, leading to serious and, in some cases, irreversible injuries;
  • Participation of police officials in plain clothes, allegedly to escape identification while engaging in violent acts against protest participants;
  • Deployment of electric batons, said to cause injuries out of proportion to any legitimate crowd-management requirement;
  • Indiscriminate lathi charges and tear gas use, allegedly carried out at times without advance warning or sufficient provocation;
  • Threats by police to fabricate evidence or plant incriminating material on protest participants, with the intent to deter or punish the exercise of their right to peaceful assembly and dissent;
  • Targeted violence against women and children, including assertions of particular insensitivity to their dignity and safety.

These allegations collectively formed the basis for the plea that only an independent, court-supervised mechanism could fairly investigate the events.

Respondents’ Stand: Violence By Protesters And Injuries To Police

The Union of India and other respondents disputed the narrative of one-sided violence. They contended that:

  • Individuals with serious criminal backgrounds allegedly infiltrated the protests posing as aggrieved students;
  • These elements purportedly instigated or participated in violent clashes with police forces;
  • As a result, many police personnel were said to have suffered grievous injuries while performing their duties.

The respondents maintained that any inquiry should equally examine violence directed at law enforcement and damage to public property, rather than focusing only on alleged police excesses.

Earlier Interim Directions Of The Supreme Court

When the matter was first considered on 28.07.2026, the Supreme Court issued crucial interim protections, particularly aimed at youth and minors involved in the protests.

Protection For Children And Limitation On Coercive Action

The Court directed:

  1. All States and investigating authorities, including authorities in the NCT of Delhi, to refrain from coercive measures against protesting students; and
  2. Immediate release of all persons below 18 years of age who had been detained or arrested in connection with the protest-related incidents.

However, the Bench carved out a specific exception: these protections would not extend to persons with criminal antecedents or those accused of “grave and heinous offences”.

Preservation Of Protesters’ Data And Privacy

In the same order, the Court also stressed data protection for protest participants.