The Supreme Court has refused to reconstitute the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) constituted to examine the violence that occurred during the July 2026 Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) student protests at Jantar Mantar and other locations. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declined a plea seeking changes to the composition of the enquiry panel, observing that the objections raised against the Committee were premature because the HPEC had only recently commenced its inquiry. At the same time, the Court issued several directions intended to strengthen the fairness and transparency of the inquiry, protect vulnerable witnesses and ensure that allegations concerning violence on all sides are examined.
The proceedings arise from petitions before the Supreme Court concerning the events surrounding the CJP protests. The Court had earlier constituted a five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee on August 18, 2026. The Committee was tasked with examining allegations concerning the use of excessive police force against protesters, as well as allegations of violence directed against security personnel. The HPEC is required to submit its findings directly to the Supreme Court and is functioning under the Court's supervision. Its mandate therefore covers allegations concerning conduct by different groups involved in the incidents rather than being restricted to a single version of events.
The latest proceedings were triggered by an application seeking reconstitution of the HPEC. Certain parties had raised objections regarding the existing composition of the Committee and sought its replacement or restructuring. The Supreme Court, however, declined to accept the request at this stage. The Bench found that the objections were based on conjecture because the Committee had only just begun its work. In the Court's view, it would be premature to question the impartiality or functioning of the HPEC before it had meaningfully undertaken the investigation assigned to it.
The Supreme Court expressed “some measure of disquiet” over the manner in which aspersions had been cast upon the HPEC at such an early stage. The Court's concern was not that parties were permanently barred from raising objections to the Committee, but that allegations questioning its credibility should not be made before there was a factual basis arising from the Committee's actual functioning. The Bench therefore declined to interfere with the composition of the HPEC at this stage and allowed the enquiry process to proceed.
The Court emphasised that the HPEC had been established specifically to assist the Supreme Court in reaching an informed assessment of the events. According to the Bench, the Committee is expected to operate with the highest standards of fairness and transparency and to adopt a dispassionate approach. The Court also made clear that the Committee was not created to advance the interests of either side involved in the litigation. Its function is to independently examine the material placed before it and assist the Court in determining the factual issues arising from the protests.
The composition of the Committee is headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy. The HPEC has been entrusted with examining allegations relating to excessive police action against protesters as well as violence against security personnel. The fact that the Committee is supervised by the Supreme Court gives the inquiry a distinct procedural framework. Rather than being an investigation conducted entirely within the ordinary administrative hierarchy, its findings are intended to assist the Court in adjudicating the issues raised in the proceedings.
While rejecting the request for reconstitution, the Supreme Court simultaneously refined the manner in which the HPEC should proceed. The Court directed the Committee to initially examine certain specific allegations. These include the alleged use of pellet guns, targeted violence and harassment of female protesters, excessive violence and destruction of property on either side. By identifying these areas for initial examination, the Court has provided the Committee with a structured starting point for its factual inquiry.
The Court also clarified that broader constitutional questions arising from the controversy would be considered by the Supreme Court itself at the appropriate stage. This distinction separates the factual inquiry entrusted to the HPEC from the ultimate judicial determination of constitutional or legal questions. The Committee is therefore expected to gather and assess relevant facts, while questions requiring authoritative judicial interpretation remain within the Supreme Court's own domain.
Another significant direction concerns the protection of vulnerable witnesses. The Supreme Court ordered that the identities of vulnerable witnesses should be kept confidential and that utmost confidentiality should be maintained regarding their statements and evidence. This direction recognises that individuals who provide evidence concerning incidents of violence may face social, physical or other forms of pressure. Maintaining confidentiality is intended to encourage witnesses to provide information without fear that their identities or statements will be unnecessarily exposed.
The Court further indicated that a separate online portal could be created through which witnesses may submit documents and other evidence confidentially. Such a mechanism would provide an alternative channel for persons who may be reluctant to approach the Committee through conventional means. It could also assist the HPEC in receiving documentary material, digital evidence and other information while preserving appropriate confidentiality safeguards.
The Supreme Court also addressed the role of the nodal counsel associated with the proceedings. The Court clarified that nodal counsel should assist the Court but should not become a channel of communication between the HPEC, the Court and the parties. This direction is aimed at preserving the independence of the Committee's functioning and preventing procedural confusion concerning communications between the different participants in the proceedings.
To further facilitate an independent process, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Dr. Monika Gusain and Advocate-on-Record C. Solomon as amici curiae. Their role is to act as independent arbiters between the parties. The appointment of amici provides the Court with additional assistance in navigating the competing claims and procedural issues arising from the inquiry, while also creating an independent mechanism through which the concerns of different sides can be placed before the Court.
The Court also directed the HPEC to appoint a Member Secretary. This administrative direction is intended to ensure that the Committee has an appropriate institutional mechanism for coordinating its work, handling material received during the inquiry and maintaining procedural continuity. The Committee was further directed to submit its first report at the earliest. The direction indicates that the Supreme Court expects the inquiry to move forward without unnecessary delay.
A particularly important issue raised before the Supreme Court concerned a 14-year-old protestor. The Court recorded submissions that the child and her family had allegedly received several threats to their lives. These allegations were said to have created a continuing and serious apprehension concerning their safety. The matter consequently raised not only questions relating to the protest proceedings but also an immediate issue of protection for a minor witness or participant associated with the controversy.
The Court was also informed of allegations that the Delhi Police had not taken appropriate action against the persons allegedly responsible for threatening or harassing the minor and her family. The Supreme Court considered the safety issue sufficiently serious to issue a direct order to the Delhi Police. The Court directed the police to assess the threat perception and provide whatever protection was necessary to ensure the safety of the child and her family.
The direction concerning the minor goes beyond merely asking the police to investigate past conduct. The Delhi Police has also been directed to expeditiously investigate the allegations against the persons described as anti-social elements who were allegedly threatening or harassing the child and her family. This creates a two-fold obligation: first, to assess the immediate threat and provide protection; and second, to investigate the allegations concerning the source of the threats.
The Supreme Court has further required the Delhi Police to file a status report concerning the steps taken in this regard. The report is to be placed before the Court before the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for October 9, when the Court is expected to consider the progress made by the police and the status of the HPEC's work.
The Court's refusal to reconstitute the Committee should not be understood as a final judicial finding that every aspect of the HPEC's composition or functioning is beyond scrutiny. Rather, the immediate decision rests on the timing and evidentiary basis of the objections. Since the Committee had only recently begun its enquiry, the Supreme Court considered it inappropriate to presume that it would act unfairly or lack independence. The Court's approach leaves open the possibility of considering concrete concerns if circumstances subsequently establish a proper basis for intervention.
The Supreme Court's directions also demonstrate that the inquiry is intended to examine allegations on both sides. The Committee has been asked to examine allegations of excessive police violence as well as violence and destruction of property involving protesters or other actors. This balanced mandate is significant because it indicates that the inquiry is not confined to determining whether police force was excessive. It is also expected to investigate allegations concerning violence against security personnel and property damage.
The direction regarding pellet guns is another specific aspect of the inquiry. By asking the HPEC to initially examine their alleged use, the Court has identified a potentially serious allegation requiring factual verification. Similarly, the reference to targeted violence and harassment of female protesters indicates that the Committee is expected to examine specific categories of alleged misconduct rather than treating the protests simply as a general law-and-order incident.
The Supreme Court's approach also seeks to maintain a distinction between factual investigation and judicial adjudication. The HPEC will collect and examine relevant material and submit its report to the Court. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, will determine the broader legal and constitutional questions at the appropriate stage. This structure allows factual questions to be examined by the specially constituted panel while reserving legal conclusions for the judicial process.
The witness-protection directions are particularly significant in an inquiry involving allegations of violence and intimidation. If witnesses fear retaliation, they may be reluctant to approach the Committee or may withhold relevant information. By directing confidentiality and considering a dedicated online submission mechanism, the Supreme Court has sought to create conditions in which witnesses can provide evidence without unnecessary exposure. The protection order concerning the 14-year-old protestor represents a more immediate application of the same concern for witness and participant safety.
The proceedings also highlight the Court's supervisory role over the HPEC. The Committee does not operate as an entirely independent commission detached from the litigation. It was created to assist the Supreme Court, reports directly to it and functions under its supervision. Consequently, questions concerning the Committee's procedure, witness protection, evidence collection and communication mechanisms remain subject to directions from the Court.
At this stage, the Supreme Court has therefore chosen continuity of the enquiry over reconstitution of the panel. The Court has indicated that premature allegations against the HPEC should not disrupt an investigation that has only recently begun. At the same time, it has strengthened the procedural safeguards governing the inquiry and directed the police to respond to a specific allegation concerning threats against a minor and her family.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's latest order in the CJP protest proceedings has kept the existing five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee intact while imposing additional safeguards for its functioning. The Committee, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy, will initially examine allegations concerning pellet guns, targeted violence, harassment of female protesters, excessive violence and destruction of property. The Court has appointed two amici curiae, directed confidentiality for vulnerable witnesses, permitted consideration of a confidential online evidence portal and ordered the HPEC to appoint a Member Secretary and submit its first report at the earliest. Separately, the Delhi Police has been directed to assess the threat perception concerning a 14-year-old protestor and her family, provide necessary protection, investigate the alleged threats and file a status report before the next hearing on October 9.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.