The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, declined to urgently hear a plea challenging police action against protesters during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) demonstration at Jantar Mantar. The protest addressed serious issues surrounding the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
The matter was brought before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The petitioner’s counsel had requested an urgent hearing, citing the importance of the students’ protest against the National Testing Agency (NTA) and examination reforms.
In a blunt response, Chief Justice Kant remarked, “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time.” The refusal highlighted the court’s current priorities, potentially signaling a broader issue with how urgent matters are managed within the judiciary.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the protest was crucial due to public interest surrounding the conduct of examinations. They presented videos purportedly showing police action against non-violent protesters. However, Chief Justice Kant dismissed this evidence, stating, “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch.”
The Supreme Court’s decision comes on the heels of the Delhi High Court also denying an urgent hearing related to police action during these protests. This series of refusals raises questions about the legal avenues available for addressing grievances in public protests.
The CJP has taken the lead in organizing protests related to the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. They demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and call for significant reforms in the examination system. Tensions escalated during a recent march toward Parliament, resulting in confrontations between the police and protesters, amid allegations of excessive force and numerous detentions.
While the Supreme Court’s comments focused on the plea’s urgent listing, they did not evaluate the validity of the allegations presented. The impression left is that the judicial system appears hesitant to intervene in matters of police conduct during protests, a stance that many might find troubling given the increasing frequency of public demonstrations in India.
As the CJP continues its protests, the debate surrounding police accountability and the rights of demonstrators is gaining traction. Critics argue that such court refusals indicate a need for greater judicial support in protecting the rights of citizens exercising their democratic freedoms.
The developments serve as a reminder of the challenges faced by students and activists advocating for transparency and reform in India’s education system. As protests progress, the response from the government and judiciary will likely shape the future of such movements.
