Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing on CJP Protest Police Action Plea

The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, firmly declined to grant an urgent listing for a plea challenging alleged police brutality against student protesters during the recent 'Chalo Sansad' march organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Delhi. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, made it clear that it was not inclined to entertain such requests at the mentioning stage, emphatically stating, 'Don't waste our time, and don't waste your time.' A lawyer representing the petitioners sought immediate intervention, highlighting widespread alleged police excesses, including lathicharge and the use of tear gas, against student demonstrators. The counsel also offered to present videographic evidence purportedly showing police personnel assaulting unarmed protesters. However, CJI Surya Kant explicitly refused to examine these videos, remarking, 'We are not interested in videos. We don't have time to watch.' He reiterated that the court was not prepared to review footage during brief mentioning proceedings and that such evidence could not be considered at that stage. The 'Chalo Sansad' (March to Parliament) protest, which took place on Monday, July 20, 2026, saw thousands of students and activists gather in Delhi. The demonstration was organized by the CJP, a movement that gained traction after remarks made by Chief Justice Surya Kant earlier in the year, where he allegedly compared a section of unemployed youth to 'cockroaches.' The primary demands of the protesters included accountability for alleged paper leaks and irregularities in competitive examinations, particularly the NEET-UG 2026, the dissolution of the National Testing Agency (NTA), and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. According to reports, the march on July 20 escalated into clashes between demonstrators and security personnel as protesters attempted to move towards Parliament despite police denying permission. Police reportedly used batons and tear gas to control the situation and disperse the crowd. Over 170 people, including both protesters and police personnel, were allegedly injured, and several FIRs were registered in connection with the violence. This refusal by the Supreme Court follows a similar stance taken by the Delhi High Court a day earlier, which also declined an urgent hearing on a plea alleging excessive use of force by the Delhi Police during the CJP's protest. The Delhi High Court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya reportedly remarked, 'Don't drag the Court into this,' when declining the request for immediate listing. The Supreme Court's decision aligns with CJI Surya Kant's previously stated position on urgent listings. On his first day as Chief Justice of India, on November 25, 2025, Justice Kant had announced a shift in the court's morning routine, indicating that the practice of listing matters on the same day upon oral mentioning would no longer be entertained, except in cases involving personal liberty or imminent execution. He emphasized that such requests should be routed through a written letter of urgency to the registrar. This directive aimed to ensure that only genuinely urgent matters received priority and to prevent the court's time from being consumed by mentioning requests. The ongoing protests by the CJP, which began at Jantar Mantar on June 6, 2026, have highlighted significant concerns among students and parents regarding the integrity of the examination system. The movement has garnered support from various segments of society and Opposition parties. Despite the Supreme Court's refusal for urgent listing, the CJP announced a nationwide peaceful protest for July 24, 2026, urging demonstrations across districts in solidarity with those affected by alleged police brutality and to continue pressing their demands for educational reforms. The court's decision underscores its procedural emphasis, particularly regarding the handling of urgent matters. While the petitioners sought judicial intervention in light of alleged human rights violations and police excesses, the Supreme Court stressed adherence to established legal processes, declining to be swayed by immediate video evidence presented during the mentioning. This development has sparked further debate among legal experts and the public regarding the balance between judicial discretion, procedural norms, and the swift redressal of grievances, especially in cases involving public protests and alleged state overreach. The incident also brings into focus the broader issue of student activism, governance in education, and the right to peaceful protest in India. The refusal to intervene urgently means the plea will now proceed through the regular court channels, potentially delaying immediate relief for the affected students and protesters.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest