SC Constitutes Five-Member High Power Enquiry Committee To Probe Various Aspects

SC Constitutes Five Member High Power Enquiry Committee Headed By Former Judge To Probe Various Aspects

It is definitely in the fitness of things that in a major development we see that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Shailendra Mani vs Union of India in Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 280/2026 with others that was passed by a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr CJI Surya Kant, Hon’ble Mr Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Ms Justice V Mohana on August 18, 2026 and that came to be published on the Supreme Court website on August 20, 2026 has constituted a five-member High Power Enquiry Committee (HPEC) headed by former Apex Court Judge Hon’ble Mr Justice (Retd) R Subhash Reddy to probe violence both by protesters and police and various other aspects in connection with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests. It must be noted that apart from the Chairman, the Committee will also have former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court Justice Hon’ble Ms Shalinder Kaur, former CBI Director Rishi Kumar Shukla and former Meghalaya DGP LR Bishnoi as its members. It was also added by the top court that additionally, the HPEC may also examine issues that pertains to the grant of interim compensation to those injured on either side, whether police personnel or protesters. Very rightly so!

Allegations of Excessive and Disproportionate Use of Force Against Protesters

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment by Apex Court Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr CJI Surya Kant, Hon’ble Mr Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Ms Justice V Mohana sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The instant batch of writ petitions brings to the fore, inter alia, the alleged excessive and disproportionate use of force by the police, paramilitary forces, and other security personnel against peaceful protestors assembled at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, and at various other locations across the country.”

As we see, the Bench then unfolds in para 2 disclosing that, “As already noticed in our earlier order dated 28.07.2026, the Petitioners have, in their petitions and the affidavits filed subsequently, broadly alleged the following instances, each illustrative of the indiscriminate and excessive use of force resorted to by the police and other security personnel under the guise of crowd control:

i. the deployment of pellet guns against peaceful protestors, occasioning grievous and, in several instances, irreversible bodily injury;

ii. acts of violence perpetrated by police officials in plain clothes, thereby evading identification and accountability while inflicting harm upon the protestors;

iii. the use of electric batons upon protestors, resulting in injuries of a nature disproportionate to any legitimate exercise of crowd-control measures;

iv. the excessive and disproportionate use of force through indiscriminate lathi charges and the deployment of tear gas, often without adequate warning or provocation;

v. threats held out by the police to fabricate evidence and to plant incriminating material upon protestors, with the object of intimidating and deterring them from the exercise of their constitutional right to peaceful assembly and dissent; and

vi. acts of violence perpetrated against women and children present at such assemblies, marked by a particular callousness towards their safety and dignity.”

Respondents Allege Violence by Protesters

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “In turn, it was contended by the Respondents that certain antisocial elements with serious criminal antecedents, masquerading as aggrieved students, indulged in acts of violence during the course of the said protests, resulting in violent clashes with the police, in consequence whereof the police forces have sustained grievous injuries.”

Supreme Court’s Earlier Interim Directions

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 stating that, “Thus, when the matter was first taken up on 28.07.2026, this Court issued certain interim directions to the NCT of Delhi and other States regarding the coercive measures taken against protesting students. In this regard, all States and investigating authorities were directed to refrain from proceeding with such measures and to forthwith release any children below the age of 18 years who may have been detained or arrested in connection therewith. It was, however, clarified that such protection would not extend to those with criminal antecedents, namely those accused of ‘grave and heinous offences’.”

While continuing in the same vein, the Bench observes in para 5 that, “In the same breath, this Court also directed the Respondents, as well as the police authorities, to ensure that the personal information and digital data of the protestors, collected in the course of the said protests, be preserved and not disclosed or published in the public domain.”

The Need for Constituting an Independent Committee

Do note, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “Having regard to the allegations levelled by the Petitioners as well as the vehement contentions advanced by the Respondents, and taking into consideration the demands made by the Petitioners, this Court viewed that a prima face case for an independent and impartial investigation and consequentially the need to constitute a High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) for the said purpose was made out. The relevant portion of the order dated 28.07.2026, thus, reads as follows:

“4. Be that as it may, the allegations made by the petitioners, prima facie, establish a compelling case for an independent and impartial investigation into the incidents of violence. Such an investigation will adequately address the allegations presented by the family members of the police personnel, as well as the issues raised by the learned Solicitor General of India.””

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 7 that, “When the matter came up for hearing on 18.08.2026, this Court clearly communicated its intent to constitute the HPEC, so as to ensure that the proceedings, and the issues to be considered therein, could be appropriately streamlined.”

Constitution of the High Power Enquiry Committee

Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 10 that, “Having given our anxious and holistic consideration to the entirety of the material placed before us along with the multitude of recommendations and propositions, we deem it appropriate and expedient, in the interest of justice, that the HPEC shall comprise:

i. Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India – Chairperson;

ii. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, Former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court – Member;

iii. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalinder Kaur, Former Judge of the Delhi High Court – Member;

iv. Shri Rishi Kumar Shukla, Former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation – Member; and

v. Dr. L.R. Bishnoi, Retired Director General of Police, Meghalaya – Member;”

Issues to be Considered by the HPEC

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 12 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “On the issues to be deliberated upon by the HPEC, the parties were afforded wide latitude to place before us their respective suggestions. Having perused the material placed on record by all the parties, we have been able to broadly segregate the issues emphasised by the Petitioners that call for consideration as follows:

i. The use of excessive force and violence against protestors by police authorities and other agencies, including the deployment of pellet guns, electric batons, lathi charges, and tear gas without adequate warning or proportionality, resulting in severe bodily harm and injuries, some of which are alleged to be of a grievous and lasting nature;

ii. The question of ensuring a proportionate and measured police response during protests, public gatherings, and peaceful assemblies, so as to strike an appropriate balance between the maintenance of public order and the constitutional right to peaceful dissent;

iii. The desirability of banning the use of metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile-action guns, having regard to the grave and, at times, irreversible bodily harm occasioned by their deployment against protestors;

iv. The necessity of ensuring that police and security personnel wear proper uniforms and visible nameplates at the time of effecting arrests or using force during crowd control operations, so as to secure accountability and enable the identification of individual officers;

v. An enquiry into the allegations pertaining to the monitoring and surveillance of protestors by police personnel, and the extent to which such measures, if undertaken, were consistent with the protestors’ constitutional rights to privacy and free assembly

vi. The alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, molestation and/or any secondary victimisation directed against female protestors, which, given the gravity and sensitivity of the allegations, warrant a focused and expeditious enquiry;

vii. The provision of medical and other requisite support, including award of compensation, to victims of alleged police abuse, including the manner and adequacy of such support extended thus far;

viii. Regulation of the issuance of blanket prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, so as to prevent their use as a routine or pre-emptive measure that forecloses the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly rather than as a genuine, proportionate response to a real and imminent threat to public order; and

ix. The establishment of strict constitutional thresholds and safeguards to prevent Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from being invoked as an instrument to stifle political dissent and peaceful protest, thereby ensuring that the provision remains confined to its intended purpose and is not permitted to operate as a chilling restraint upon constitutionally protected speech and assembly.”

Issues Raised by the Respondents

Equally significant is that the Bench points out in para 13 that, “Similarly, the Respondents have also placed on record their own grievances, and submitted that the HPEC so constituted ought to consider the following issues:

i. The alleged use of force and violence by protestors against police officials and other security personnel, which, according to the Respondents, has been understated in the narrative advanced by the Petitioners and warrants an equally rigorous and unbiased examination;

ii. The damage occasioned to public property on account of the actions of the protestors during the course of the said demonstrations, including the destruction of and injury caused to government installations, vehicles, and other assets belonging to the State and to private citizens alike; and

iii. The injuries sustained by the police forces in the course of discharging their duties, as well as the consequent mental and emotional trauma borne by their kith and kin merits due recognition and consideration on a par with the grievances raised by the Petitioners.”

Most rationally, the Bench propounds in para 14 holding that, “In our opinion, all of the issues enumerated hereinabove merit analysis by the HPEC, upon due consideration of the material and submissions placed before it by the parties. The HPEC is also at liberty to consider any other issues incidental thereto, as it may so deem fit.”

Needless to say, the Bench states in para 15 that, “It goes without saying that the HPEC constituted by us shall be empowered to enlist the assistance of forensic, technical, and domain experts in the course of its enquiry, should it view it necessary so to do.”

Manner in Which the HPEC Ought to Deliberate on the Issues

For sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 16 holding that, “Taking into account the catena of issues raised herein, and keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of some of the issues so outlined, we deem it appropriate to clarify, as a matter of abundant caution, that the enquiry undertaken by the HPEC shall not be a one-time exercise. Rather, the Committee shall undertake a continuous and periodic assessment of the issues enumerated hereinabove, and shall submit its interim findings periodically so as to enable this Court to take appropriate measures and issue such directions as may be warranted.”

Priority Enquiry Into Alleged Violence Against Female Protesters

Most remarkably, the Bench expounds in para 17 holding that, “This Court, on the basis of the dialogue undertaken with the parties on either side, would recommend that the HPEC address certain issues on a priority basis, foremost amongst which is the matter relating to the alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, and molestation of female protestors, as encapsulated in item (vi) of paragraph 12 hereinabove, bearing in mind the sensitivity attendant upon the issues contained therein.”

Injuries, Chain of Command and Interim Compensation

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 18 that, “Similarly, the HPEC may also assess the grievous harm and injury allegedly caused to protestors by police authorities and security personnel, as encapsulated in item (i) of paragraph 12 and investigate aspects such as the chain of command resulting in such excesses, those responsible for such actions and whether there were any breaches of any of the existing laws, rules or norms in exercising such force. Additionally, the HPEC may also examine issues pertaining to the grant of interim compensation to those injured on either side, whether police personnel or protestors, as provided in item (vii) of paragraph 12, as well as item (iii) of paragraph 13.”

Broader Constitutional Questions Reserved for Supreme Court

Broadly speaking, the Bench observes in para 19 that, “At this juncture, we consider it necessary to enter a caveat that the broader constitutional questions arising herein shall be dealt with by this Court in due course, after hearing the contentions advanced by either side. These are matters that call for a measure of judicial nuance and circumspection, and merit determination by this Court only upon a careful consideration of the submissions advanced before it.”

Submission of Evidence and Protection of Complainants’ Identity

It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 20 noting that, “The parties are, accordingly, granted liberty to approach the HPEC and submit such relevant material, documentary evidence, and suggestions as they may deem fit, in such manner as may be decided by the HPEC through its Chairperson. Liberty is also granted to complaints, representations and material to be provided anonymously so that the identity of the complainants and witnesses are protected.”

Nodal Officers Appointed

It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 21 that, “Further, and with a view to consolidating and streamlining the process before us, as also to establish a clear and abiding conduit of communication between this Court, the HPEC, and all stakeholders concerned, we deem it appropriate to appoint the following counsel as nodal officers in this matter:

i. Ms. Ashima Mandla, Advocate-on-Record (+91 9999720092) and Mr. Daksh Kadian, Advocate (+91 9465979398) on behalf of the Petitioners;

ii. Ms. Astha Singh, Advocate-on-Record (+91 9909792652) on behalf of the Respondents.”

Police and Investigating Agencies Directed to Furnish Preserved Records to HPEC

To be sure, the Bench directs further in para 22 for clarity holding that, “We also deem it necessary, for clarity, to direct that the Police Authorities, Para-Military Forces, and other Investigating Agencies, who were directed vide order dated 28.07.2026, preserve all CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records, and PCR call logs pertaining to the student protests, furnish the entire record to the HPEC and extend their full cooperation.”

Adding more clarity, the Bench further clarifies in para 23 stating that, “It is further clarified that the constitution of the HPEC by us shall in no way deter or debar the Police authorities or other security forces from taking administrative or disciplinary action against such of their officers as may be found to be in contravention of the rules governing their conduct.”

Logistics and Modalities Governing Functioning of HPEC

Plainly speaking, the Bench observes in para 24 that, “The Union of India is directed to provide such honorarium, perks and facilities to the Chairperson as may be commensurate to a sitting Supreme Court, including the provision of transit stay in New Delhi.”

First Interim Report to Be Submitted at the Earliest

What’s more, the Bench directs and holds in para 27 that, “We request the HPEC to complete its inquiry and deliberations on the issues encapsulated in (i) and (vi) of Paragraph 12 and submit its ‘First Interim Report’ at the earliest.”

Fresh Matters Returnable on 10 September 2026

Still more, the Bench also further directs and holds in para 28 that, “Meanwhile, issue notice in all fresh matters, returnable on 10.09.2026.”

Finally, we see that the Bench then also directs and holds in para 29 that, “Let, notice also be issued in I.A. Nos. 218078/2026 and 223792/2026 (in W.P. (Criminal) No. 280/2026) and I.A. No. 242559/2026 (in W.P. (Civil) No. 917/2026.”