Supreme Court Judge Criticizes Police Tactics During NEET Protest at Jantar Mantar

On Tuesday, police moved in on a gathering of NEET aspirants at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, using batons and water cannons. The students had assembled to protest recent increases in the entrance exam fee and delays in the exam schedule. Video footage showed officers dispersing the crowd, resulting in several injuries. The incident quickly drew the attention of the judiciary after a Supreme Court bench took note of the police conduct.

Justice B.R. Bhuyan, who was hearing a related petition, described the police operation as “bound to breed contempt for law,” according to Times of India. He warned that employing excessive force against peaceful demonstrators undermines public confidence in legal institutions. The judge urged the authorities to respect the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and to investigate the incident promptly.

The NEET protest stems from the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test’s recent fee hike of about 25%, which many students and parents deem unaffordable. The exam, which determines admission to medical colleges across India, was also postponed several times due to the pandemic, adding to the frustration. Student groups have organized rallies in several cities, demanding a rollback of the fee increase and greater transparency in the exam administration.

Jantar Mantar has long served as a symbolic venue for civil dissent in the capital, hosting movements ranging from anti‑corruption campaigns to farmers’ agitations. However, police interventions at the site have occasionally turned violent, most notably during the 2020 farmers’ protests. The recurring clashes raise questions about the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding democratic freedoms, a tension that the Supreme Court has addressed in past rulings.

Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s admonition could prompt a formal inquiry into the Delhi police’s handling of the protest. If the investigation finds violations of constitutional rights, it may lead to directives for compensation to injured protesters and stricter guidelines for future crowd control. The episode underscores the broader challenge of managing large‑scale demonstrations in a densely populated metropolis while upholding the rule of law.