Archive · 25 Aug 2026
Pleas Seek Reconstitution of Panel Probing Police Excesses Against Protesters
Some people asked India’s Supreme Court to change the members of a committee investigating clashes between student protesters and police.
They said they were concerned about who was chosen for the committee.
The government’s senior lawyer disagreed with the request and called it mischievous.
The Chief Justice said the court would supervise the committee’s work.
He also said that judges’ names should not be used in this way.
The committee is led by former judge R Subhash Reddy.
It will examine whether police used too much force, including pellet guns.
It will also examine whether protesters used force against police and other security personnel.
The dispute relates to protests in Delhi that included clashes near Parliament.
Petitioners sought reconstitution of a five-member Supreme Court-appointed committee investigating alleged police excesses and violence against security personnel.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said petitioners had reservations about the committee’s composition and requested that their application be listed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the plea, calling it “very mischievous” and arguing that the court was not a political platform.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said judges’ names should not be mentioned and urged the petitioners to let the committee work under the court’s supervision.
The committee is headed by Justice R Subhash Reddy and is examining allegations involving excessive force, pellet guns and violence by protesters against police.
- Who
- Petitioners represented by senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Prashant Bhushan; the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant; and the government represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
- What
- A plea was mentioned seeking reconstitution of a five-member high-powered committee investigating alleged police excesses against student protesters and violence against police personnel.
- When
- The plea was mentioned on Tuesday; one report identifies the date as August 25, without specifying a year.
- Where
- The matter was mentioned before the Supreme Court in New Delhi, concerning protests in Delhi.
- Why
- Petitioners expressed reservations about the committee’s composition, while the committee was created to examine alleged excessive force by police and alleged violence by protesters.
Petitioners’ Concerns
Government and Court Response
Committee composition
Petitioners’ Concerns
Petitioners said they had a common concern about the committee’s composition and sought listing of an application to reconstitute it.
Government and Court Response
The Solicitor General opposed the request, while the Chief Justice said the committee had been formed after considering members’ expertise, experience and diversity.
Role of the committee
Petitioners’ Concerns
The petitioners sought court consideration of their request before the committee proceeds with its inquiry.
Government and Court Response
The Chief Justice said the committee would work under the court’s supervision and should be allowed to examine the issues.
Scope of investigation
Petitioners’ Concerns
The petitions allege police excesses against student protesters during the agitation.
Government and Court Response
The committee’s mandate also includes examining alleged use of force and violence by protesters against police officers and other security personnel.
- Committee chair
- Former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy
- Committee members
- Ravi Shankar Jha, Justice Shalinder Kaur, Rishi Kumar Shukla and L R Bishnoi
- Issues under review
- Police use of excessive force, including pellet guns, and alleged violence by protesters against police and security personnel
- March date
- The CJP-led march to Parliament took place on July 20 in Delhi
- Protests began
- The agitation began at Jantar Mantar on June 20
- Protests ended
- The agitation was called off on July 25 after the reported resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan and acceptance of other demands
- Court response
- The Chief Justice said the committee would work under the court’s supervision and had not been discharged
