Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing on Plea Over Police Action During CJP ‘March to Parliament’ Protest
The Supreme Court has refused urgent hearing of a plea concerning police action during the CJP March to Parliament protest in Delhi. The court advised following regular legal procedures as petitioners alleged force against students, while Delhi Police defended its actions citing violence, stone pelting, security concerns, and ongoing investigations.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s side argued that the matter involved a large number of students and that an investigation was necessary into the alleged use of force by the Delhi Police during the protest in Delhi. Responding to the request, Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that the court’s time should not be misused. When the petitioner referred to showing alleged videos of the police action, the bench said that the court did not have time to watch videos and that an urgent hearing could not be granted solely on that basis.
The case is related to a protest in which a large number of students and supporters were marching towards Parliament. The objective of the protest was to raise concerns over examination irregularities, alleged paper leaks, and demands for reforms in the examination system. As the protesters moved towards Parliament, the Delhi Police attempted to stop them by placing barricades at several locations. The situation later became tense, following which the police used force to disperse the crowd.
After the incident, several videos surfaced on social media showing some protesters injured during the confrontation. On the other hand, the Delhi Police stated that some individuals involved in the protest resorted to violence, stone pelting, and attempts to breach security arrangements. The police said necessary action was taken to maintain law and order. Several First Information Reports (FIRs) have also been registered in connection with the matter, and the investigation is continuing.
Notably, before approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioners had also sought urgent hearing from the Delhi High Court, but the request was not accepted there either. The High Court observed that courts should not intervene in such matters without following the appropriate legal process. Following the stance of both courts, the petitioners now have the option to proceed through the regular legal procedure.
Meanwhile, political reactions over the issue have intensified. Opposition parties have raised questions over the police action and are highlighting allegations of alleged mistreatment of students, bringing the issue into focus both inside Parliament and across public platforms. The developments surrounding the CJP protest have once again drawn attention to the balance between maintaining public order and addressing concerns raised by student groups.

Comment List