Supreme Court refuses to reconstitute student protest violence committee

The Court also issued supplementary directions regarding the scope of the enquiry, witness protection, and the appointment of Amici Curiae.

Who it concerns: Petitioner: Shaileendra Mani Tripathi; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.; Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V. Mohana.

What the court decided

• Refused the application (I.A. No. 258046/2026) for reconstitution of the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC).
• Directed the HPEC to prioritize its enquiry into the use of pellet guns, targeted violence against female protestors, and excessive violence/destruction of property.
• Reaffirmed that broader constitutional questions will be considered by the Court at an appropriate stage.
• Directed the HPEC to provide due protection and confidentiality to vulnerable witnesses and to create a separate online portal for evidence submission.
• Clarified that the role of nodal counsel is limited to assisting the Court and does not constitute a communication line between the HPEC, the Court, and parties.
• Directed the Court Registry to provide paperbooks and relevant material to the nodal counsel.
• Appointed Dr. Monika Gusain (Senior Advocate) and Mr. C. Solomon (AOR) as Amici Curiae to assist the Court as representatives of the HPEC and act as independent arbiters.
• Requested the HPEC to appoint a Member Secretary at the earliest.

Also in the document

• The Court expressed 'disquiet' regarding the 'premature and precipitate' nature of the reconstitution request, noting it proceeded on 'conjecture and preconceived notions' before the enquiry began.
• The Union of India informed the Court that it had complied with the previous order regarding providing infrastructure and facilities to the HPEC.
• The Court emphasized that the HPEC is constituted to assist the Court with fairness and transparency, not to espouse the causes of any party.