The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, declined an urgent hearing regarding police actions against student protesters. These protests occurred during a demonstration organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at Jantar Mantar, highlighting concerns over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
The petition was presented before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The counsel for the petitioner requested immediate attention to the matter, citing issues of significant public concern.
However, the Chief Justice responded firmly, stating, “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time.” This dismissal marks a critical moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding student rights and police conduct.
The lawyer emphasized that students were voicing their grievances over the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, the examination process itself, and the need for reforms in the National Testing Agency (NTA). The Chief Justice, however, remained uninterested in the visual evidence of the police actions, indicating a focus on the legal aspects rather than public sentiment.
“We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch,” the Chief Justice remarked when the counsel referenced video footage purportedly depicting police confrontation with the protesters. The Bench ultimately did not agree to grant an urgent hearing.
This refusal from the Supreme Court follows a similar decision made by the Delhi High Court a day prior, which also declined to hear a plea related to the police’s conduct during the protests. Such decisions raise concerns about the judiciary’s engagement with student protests and police accountability.
The CJP has mobilized to challenge the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and advocating for substantial reforms in the examination system. Protests have escalated, with demonstrators marching towards Parliament, leading to reports of clashes with police and subsequent allegations of excessive force.
The Supreme Court’s observations were limited to the urgency of the request and did not provide a judgment on the claims made in the petition. This leaves the door open for further legal proceedings and highlights the ongoing tensions between educational reforms and student advocacy.
Legal experts indicate that the refusal for an urgent hearing is significant. It reflects not only the burden of cases before the Supreme Court but also suggests a potential reluctance to engage with issues that could spark extensive public debate. As students continue to confront systemic issues, their right to protest remains a focal point in the push for accountability and change.
