India Supreme Court stays coercive action against NEET protesters

• The Supreme Court has stayed coercive action against NEET protesters in India.
• Minors detained by police will be released immediately, except those with a criminal background.
• A high-powered committee will investigate allegations of excessive use of force against protesters.
• The Union government and Delhi Police will have an opportunity to place their version on record.

The Supreme Court has taken a significant step in addressing the allegations of excessive use of force by police during the recent NEET paper leak protests. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana directed that no coercive action would be taken against protesters involved in the demonstrations across various parts of the country. The court also ordered the immediate release of minors detained by police, except those with a criminal background.

The Supreme Court has prima facie found a case for a fair and independent probe into the alleged excessive use of force against protesters. Chief Justice Kant noted that the allegations made out a strong case for an investigation, citing instances of pellet gun use, electric baton assaults, and molestation of young women. A high-powered committee will be constituted to ensure a thorough and impartial inquiry.

The Supreme Court has agreed with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that the Union government and Delhi Police should have an opportunity to place their version on record. The court has issued notice to the chief secretaries of six states, including Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, to preserve all records related to the protests.

Lawyers and compliance officers should be aware that the Supreme Court's order may impact their clients' liability in cases where coercive action was taken against protesters, and they should review their files to determine if any clients were involved in the protests or affected by the police actions.

Source: Original reporting via LawBeat