The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected rape convict Asaram's plea for interim medical bail, ruling that he would remain in judicial custody while permitting him to engage a trained caretaker of his choice round the clock based on recommendations made by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale passed the order after examining AIIMS' medical assessment, which concluded that Asaram did not require hospitalisation but would benefit from continuous medical assistance.

The court also granted him liberty to approach it again if his health condition deteriorates.

AIIMS Report Guides Court's Decision

The order was based on a comprehensive medical evaluation conducted by AIIMS following the Supreme Court's direction on July 21.

A team of specialists examined Asaram and submitted a report stating that while his ailments did not warrant admission to a hospital, he required regular medical monitoring and assistance.

Accepting the findings, the Bench directed jail authorities to permit Asaram to appoint a trained caretaker of his own choice for 24-hour assistance during his incarceration.

Appeal Against Conviction Pending

The interim bail application was filed during the pendency of Asaram's appeal against the Rajasthan High Court judgment that upheld his conviction in the 2013 rape case involving a minor devotee.

The case relates to allegations that the minor girl was confined inside Asaram's hut at his Jodhpur ashram in August 2013, where she was sexually assaulted and criminally intimidated.

A trial court had convicted Asaram along with two co-accused. Earlier this year, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed the conviction under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act.

State Opposes Interim Bail

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Rajasthan government, opposed the interim bail plea.

He argued that Asaram had recently travelled to Kashi Vishwanath and Ayodhya after being granted temporary medical bail, questioning the seriousness of his medical claims.

Mehta also submitted that Asaram had sought parole before another court and had subsequently been granted 20 days' parole, alleging that this fact had not been properly disclosed before the Supreme Court.

Defence Denies Suppression of Facts

Counsel representing Asaram denied any concealment, stating that the parole application had been filed earlier and was unrelated to the present medical bail request.

The defence maintained that the parole was not granted on medical grounds and therefore did not amount to suppression of material facts before the apex court.

Fresh Plea Permitted if Condition Worsens

While refusing interim medical bail, the Supreme Court disposed of the application in line with the AIIMS report.

However, the Bench clarified that Asaram would be at liberty to file a fresh application if his health condition worsens while his appeal against conviction remains pending before the court.

 In a significant move aimed at improving road safety and ensuring compensation for accident victims, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Central Government and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to prepare a pilot project under which vehicles without valid third-party insurance may be denied fuel at petrol pumps.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra also ordered an extension of the mandatory long-term third-party insurance period for new vehicles. The compulsory insurance cover for new cars has been increased from three years to four years, while for new two-wheelers it has been extended from five years to six years.

The court directed IRDAI to issue the necessary guidelines without delay.

Court Cites Rising Number of Uninsured Vehicles

The Bench observed that despite the introduction of mandatory long-term third-party insurance in 2018, a large number of vehicles continue to operate without valid insurance.

The judges noted that extending the mandatory insurance period by one year would strengthen financial protection for road accident victims and improve compliance with motor insurance regulations.

With the revised rules, buyers of new vehicles will have to pay a higher upfront premium while purchasing their vehicles to cover the extended insurance period.

Pilot Project to Link Fuel Purchase with Insurance

The Supreme Court asked the Centre and IRDAI to examine the feasibility of a pilot project that would prevent uninsured vehicles from purchasing fuel.

The proposal is intended to improve compliance with mandatory third-party insurance requirements and reduce the number of uninsured vehicles on Indian roads.

The court did not order an immediate nationwide rollout but asked authorities to begin with a pilot programme before considering wider implementation.

Technology-Based Enforcement Suggested

The Bench also recommended greater use of technology to identify uninsured vehicles and strengthen enforcement.

Among the directions issued by the court are:

• Highway surveillance cameras should be integrated with the Insurance Information Bureau (IIB) database and the VAHAN vehicle registration portal.

• Selected highways should adopt automated vehicle identification systems in place of conventional toll-based monitoring.

• Cameras should automatically detect uninsured vehicles and generate electronic challans.

• Police personnel should be provided with mobile applications or handheld devices to verify vehicle insurance status in real time.

• Citizens should also be given access to an online platform where they can check whether a vehicle has valid third-party or comprehensive insurance coverage.

More Than Half of Vehicles Allegedly Uninsured

The court referred to findings of a Parliamentary Committee, which reported that 16.54 crore out of India's 30.48 crore registered vehicles do not have valid insurance.

The figures indicate that nearly 56 per cent of vehicles on Indian roads are operating without mandatory insurance cover, raising concerns over compensation for victims of road accidents.

Focus on Road Safety and Victim Protection

Third-party motor insurance is mandatory under Indian law as it provides compensation to individuals affected by road accidents involving insured vehicles.

The Supreme Court's latest directions aim to improve compliance, strengthen enforcement through digital monitoring, and ensure greater financial protection for accident victims while encouraging responsible vehicle ownership.

Six NEET aspirants have approached the Supreme Court alleging discrepancies between the answers they marked on their original OMR sheets and the scanned copies uploaded by the National Testing Agency (NTA), claiming the mismatch could adversely affect their medical admissions.

The petition comes at a crucial stage as the NEET counselling process is already underway, prompting the students to seek an urgent hearing before the apex court.

Supreme Court Agrees to List Matter

The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan.

Appearing for the petitioners, counsel urged the court to hear the matter on priority, stating that only six students were involved and that counselling had already begun.

Responding to the request, the Chief Justice said, "We will list it," indicating that the matter would be taken up for hearing.

Students Allege OMR Discrepancies

According to the petition, the candidates found differences between the responses they had marked in the examination and those reflected in the scanned OMR sheets uploaded by the NTA.

The petitioners contend that the alleged discrepancies have resulted in lower scores, potentially affecting their eligibility for admission to medical colleges.

Their counsel informed the court that all six students had expected scores in the range of 600 to 650 marks, making the alleged errors significant in determining their final ranks and admission prospects.

Alleged Response from NTA

The students claim they repeatedly contacted the NTA through emails and also visited its office seeking correction of the alleged discrepancies.

However, according to the petition, their representations were not acted upon.

The counsel further alleged that an NTA official told the students, "Go to the Supreme Court. We don't bother about this," after they raised concerns regarding the OMR sheets.

The NTA has not publicly responded to these specific allegations.

Issue Surfaces During Counselling

The plea assumes significance as medical admissions based on NEET scores are currently in progress across the country.

The petitioners have argued that any delay in resolving the issue could cause irreversible prejudice to their admission opportunities.

NEET Reforms Under Judicial Scrutiny

The latest petition comes amid broader judicial scrutiny of the NEET examination process following the 2026 paper leak controversy.

The Supreme Court has recently emphasised the need for systemic and institutional reforms within the National Testing Agency to improve transparency and examination integrity.

Earlier, the NTA had released scanned copies of candidates' OMR answer sheets and provided an objection window before announcing the final results.

Meanwhile, similar disputes are also pending before other courts. The Bombay High Court is hearing a petition alleging discrepancies between expected and declared NEET scores, while the Delhi High Court is examining a case in which a student claimed that his score changed multiple times on the NTA portal.

The Supreme Court's decision in the present matter could have implications for the affected candidates as the counselling process continues.

The legal proceedings in the high-profile Raja Raghuvanshi murder case have entered a crucial phase after prime accused Sonam Raghuvanshi surrendered before the trial court in Shillong in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions. Legal experts believe that if the trial progresses within the timeline prescribed by the apex court, the case could reach its conclusion by January 2027.

Sonam surrendered before the Shillong trial court on July 29, days after the Supreme Court directed her to do so while disposing of her interim bail plea. Following her surrender, she was sent back to judicial custody.

The development has also sparked legal debate over two key questions: whether the Supreme Court's six-month deadline for completing the trial will be counted from the date of its order or from the date of Sonam's surrender, and whether she can seek bail again before the expiry of six months.

Supreme Court's Timeline Under Discussion

According to legal experts, the Supreme Court's order dated July 23 laid down two important conditions.

First, Sonam was directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks from the date of the order. Secondly, the court observed that if the trial does not proceed at the expected pace or is not completed within six months, she would be free to file a fresh bail application.

Advocate Ashish S. Sharma said the wording of the Supreme Court's order suggests that the six-month period should be calculated from the date of the order itself rather than from the date of surrender.

If interpreted accordingly, the trial is expected to conclude by late January 2027, provided proceedings continue without unnecessary delays.

Fresh Bail Plea Still Legally Possible

Legal experts have clarified that the six-month condition is linked specifically to delays in the trial and does not completely bar Sonam from approaching the court earlier.

A fresh bail application may still be filed before the expiry of six months if new legal grounds emerge during the proceedings.

Such circumstances may include serious medical issues, significant new evidence arising during witness examination, or any other legally sustainable development that materially alters the case.

However, experts note that merely surrendering before the court ahead of the deadline would not automatically strengthen a future bail claim, though it may be viewed as cooperation with the judicial process.

Evidence Chain Will Be Crucial

The prosecution is expected to rely heavily on circumstantial, electronic and forensic evidence to establish the case against Sonam Raghuvanshi and the other accused.

Legal observers say the prosecution will have to demonstrate an unbroken chain of evidence that points exclusively towards the accused without leaving room for reasonable doubt.

The case reportedly includes CCTV footage, forensic material and other scientific evidence, all of which are expected to play a decisive role during the trial.

If these pieces of evidence are successfully proved in court and found to be interconnected, they could become the primary basis for conviction.

Why the Early Surrender Matters

Legal experts believe Sonam's decision to surrender before the expiry of the three-week deadline could carry procedural significance.

It demonstrates compliance with the Supreme Court's order and signals cooperation with the judicial process. It also allows the trial to move forward without delay, enabling procedural steps such as supply of documents, framing of charges and examination of witnesses to begin sooner.

While this does not guarantee any legal advantage regarding bail, her conduct during the proceedings may be considered by courts in future applications.

Case Enters Crucial Stage

With the accused now back in judicial custody and trial proceedings set to gather pace, the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case has entered its most significant phase.

The coming months will focus on the examination of witnesses, presentation of scientific evidence and arguments from both sides. If the trial proceeds within the timeframe envisaged by the Supreme Court, the case may witness its final judgment in early 2027.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its decision in the case concerning the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), with the court now expected to decide whether petitions challenging the 2023 law governing their selection should be referred to a five-judge bench. Defending the law before the court, the Centre argued that it would be wrong to presume that the Prime Minister and a Union minister would act with “bad intentions” or against democracy simply because they hold a numerical majority in the selection committee. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre before a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, questioned the argument that the Prime Minister’s role in the selection process should itself raise concerns. He asked whether, if the Prime Minister’s decision could not be trusted, a similar requirement would have to be introduced while choosing members of the Union Cabinet, requiring consultation with a former judge or an outside person.

Justice Datta responded that the issue before the court was not about whether the Prime Minister could be trusted. He said there was no question of the court refusing to place trust in the Prime Minister and recalled that the Supreme Court had previously expressed confidence that people with criminal backgrounds would not be inducted as ministers. The larger concern, the bench indicated, was the independence of the Election Commissioners and whether the composition of the selection committee should also visibly demonstrate impartiality. Justice Datta observed that the court was not saying the present committee had failed to achieve fairness, but pointed to the numerical structure of the panel — two members on the Prime Minister’s side and one representing the Opposition. The observations have brought the focus back to the composition of the selection committee and whether the process provides sufficient institutional safeguards while appointing officials who are expected to function independently while overseeing elections in the country.

The dispute centres on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which was passed by Parliament in December 2023 and received presidential assent on December 29 that year. Petitioners challenging the law have argued that it goes against the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment because the Chief Justice of India was excluded from the process for appointing the CEC and Election Commissioners. Under the 2023 law, the selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. If there is no recognised Leader of Opposition, the leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha becomes part of the panel. The controversy largely revolves around this change in the composition of the committee and the removal of the CJI from the appointment mechanism. With arguments now heard, the Supreme Court has reserved its decision on whether the challenge to the law requires consideration by a larger five-judge bench. The outcome will be closely watched because the case deals directly with the appointment mechanism for the Election Commission, one of the country's key constitutional institutions, and the broader question of how independence and visible impartiality should be maintained in the selection process.

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Delhi government to ensure medical treatment for protesters injured during the July 20 Parliament march from Jantar Mantar, while also ordering the Centre to preserve records related to weapons and ammunition used by the Rapid Action Force during the demonstration. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan was hearing petitions concerning the alleged use of pellet guns against protesters during the Cockroach Janta Party's march. The court, however, declined for now to impose a blanket ban on pellet guns, observing that police may use such weapons in specific situations under the existing framework. The bench said it would be difficult to prohibit their use without a direct challenge to the police rules that permit such weapons. At the same time, the Supreme Court sought the Centre's response on guidelines governing the use of pellet guns and directed that records concerning RAF weapons and ammunition deployed during the Jantar Mantar protest be kept safe.

The petitions were filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and alleged victims Prashant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori, who sought a ban on pellet guns. They claimed that the RAF used pellet guns against students during the July 20 march. The issue has remained controversial since the protest, with allegations surrounding the type and extent of force used by security personnel. According to the details presented, more than 100 people were injured during the clashes, including protesters and police personnel. The CJP had called for a march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament, with the demonstration continuing from around 8 am until 5 pm and witnessing repeated confrontations between protesters and security forces. Some demonstrators allegedly broke barricades and moved towards Parliament through Parliament Street, Janpath, the War Memorial area, Kartavya Path and Vijay Chowk. Police and Rapid Action Force personnel resorted to crowd-control measures as the situation deteriorated, including lathi-charge and tear gas. Images of stone-pelting also emerged later in the evening, while protesters alleged that pellet guns had been fired at students. Police cleared Jantar Mantar by around 5 pm, but CJP supporters reportedly returned to the protest site around 11 pm and resumed their demonstration.

The case has also brought wider attention to the rules governing the use of pellet guns in India. Pellet guns are not completely prohibited in the country. According to the framework described in the petition-related material, law-enforcement agencies operate under guidelines and standard operating procedures for the use of such less-lethal weapons in crowd-control situations. The stated approach is that police should first use methods considered less likely to cause serious injury when dealing with a breakdown of law and order. Weapons such as pellet guns are meant to be considered only when other measures fail to bring a violent crowd under control, and their use should remain proportionate to the situation. Security personnel are also expected to take precautions to minimise injuries to civilians and fellow personnel. Thursday's Supreme Court directions do not amount to a finding that the RAF unlawfully used pellet guns during the July 20 protest. The allegations and circumstances surrounding their reported use remain before the court. By directing preservation of weapons and ammunition records and seeking the Centre's response on the guidelines, the bench has ensured that material connected with the security operation remains available while the matter is examined further.

 Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of Indore-based transport businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, surrendered before a court in Shillong on Wednesday and was subsequently sent to judicial custody, complying with the Supreme Court's direction that had cancelled her bail earlier this month.

Sonam appeared before the Shillong court before the expiry of the three-week deadline granted by the apex court. The Supreme Court had, on July 23, directed her to surrender before the trial court after setting aside the bail granted by the Meghalaya High Court.

Supreme Court Cancelled Bail

A bench of the Supreme Court had observed that the High Court erred in granting bail solely on alleged procedural lapses relating to the communication of arrest grounds.

The court clarified that there is a legal distinction between not informing an accused of the grounds of arrest at all and providing incomplete or inadequate information. It held that a technical deficiency alone could not justify granting bail in a serious criminal case.

The bench had further directed that the murder trial be completed within six months. It also stated that Sonam would be free to seek fresh bail if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period.

Court Concerned About Trial

While cancelling the bail, the Supreme Court noted that Sonam had acknowledged before the magistrate that she had received the grounds of arrest and related documents.

The bench also observed that the merits of her earlier bail applications had already been examined and rejected. Since the trial had commenced, allowing the accused to remain out on bail at this stage could potentially affect the judicial process.

The case was argued on behalf of the Meghalaya government by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Family Welcomes Surrender

Following Sonam's surrender, Raja Raghuvanshi's brother Vipin Raghuvanshi welcomed the development and thanked the Meghalaya government for its efforts in the investigation.

He expressed hope that the legal proceedings would now move forward and justice would be delivered in the case.

Background of the Case

The Raja Raghuvanshi murder case drew nationwide attention after the Indore-based businessman was allegedly murdered during a trip to Meghalaya. Sonam Raghuvanshi was identified as the principal accused during the investigation and has remained at the centre of the high-profile case.

The Supreme Court's latest order has ensured that the accused returns to judicial custody while the trial proceeds under court supervision.

With Sonam now lodged in jail, the focus shifts to the ongoing trial, which the apex court has directed to be completed within six months to ensure an expeditious conclusion.

Police says facial recognition identified participants with pending criminal cases; Supreme Court separately examining allegations of police excesses

Delhi Police has claimed that 2,873 people with pending criminal cases participated in the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) Parliament March held on July 20, including 101 individuals accused in murder cases. The police said the participants were identified using technological tools, including the Facial Recognition System (FRS), and alleged that 989 of them are involved in serious criminal offences.

The claims come as the Supreme Court is separately hearing petitions alleging excessive police force during the student-led protest, making the events surrounding the July 20 demonstration a subject of both criminal investigation and judicial scrutiny.

Police cites serious criminal background

According to Delhi Police, those identified through its verification process face charges across multiple categories of serious crime. Besides the 101 murder accused, the list includes 62 individuals booked for attempted murder, 284 for robbery and dacoity, 61 for rape, six under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 25 for crimes against women, 229 under the Arms Act, 135 for snatching, 19 for kidnapping, and 67 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Police officials alleged that many among those identified are repeat offenders with multiple criminal cases pending against them.

Police personnel among those injured

The July 20 Parliament March witnessed clashes between protesters and security personnel in central Delhi after demonstrators attempted to move towards Parliament.

Delhi Police said 118 police personnel, including senior officers ranging from the Special Commissioner to ACP rank, sustained injuries during the violence. Several women police personnel were also among the injured. Around 60 protesters were reportedly injured during the confrontation.

Security forces used lathi-charge and tear gas after the situation escalated, while incidents of stone-pelting were also reported.

Social media posts under scanner

Delhi Police also said it has issued notices to multiple social media platforms seeking the removal of posts and videos allegedly containing objectionable or abusive remarks targeting the Prime Minister that were circulated during the Jantar Mantar protest and the Parliament March.

According to the police, the action is part of its ongoing investigation into content shared during and after the protests.

Matter under judicial review

The police's latest claims come amid ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court, where petitions have alleged excessive force by law enforcement during the student protests. The apex court has ordered preservation of evidence and is examining allegations relating to the police response, while the Delhi Police continues its investigation into violence during the demonstration.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union Government on a petition challenging a key provision of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the petition filed by Ankání Biswas, a transgender advocate practising before the Calcutta High Court. The Court tagged the matter with other pending petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the amendment.

The challenge focuses on the proviso added to Section 2(k), which excludes people with different sexual orientations and “self-perceived sexual identities” from the statutory definition of a transgender person.

Advocate Challenges Exclusion

According to the petition, Biswas was assigned female at birth but later identified as a trans-masculine person.

The petitioner obtained a transgender identity card in 2023 and was recognised in official records as a third-gender person. The plea argues that the 2026 amendment creates uncertainty over whether such recognition will continue to remain legally valid.

Biswas has contended that the amended provision directly affects identity, professional records and access to legal and welfare protections.

Amendment Changes Definition

The original 2019 law broadly defined a transgender person as someone whose gender did not match the gender assigned at birth. It also recognised the concept of self-perceived gender identity.

The 2026 amendment narrowed that position by excluding people whose claim rests on self-perceived identity. Transgender groups and rights advocates have criticised the change, arguing that it introduces restrictive classifications and weakens legal recognition available under the earlier framework.

The Supreme Court will now examine whether Parliament can redefine the category in a way that affects people who already hold identity certificates.

NALSA Judgment Central

The petition relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, commonly known as the NALSA ruling.

In that case, the Court recognised transgender people as a third gender and affirmed a person’s right to identify as male, female or third gender. It treated gender identity as an integral part of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty.

The judgment also rejected compulsory biological or medical testing as the sole basis for recognising gender identity.

Biswas has argued that the amended definition undermines this constitutional principle by allowing statutory classification to override an individual’s internal and self-determined identity.

Existing Cards At Risk

One of the most important questions before the Court concerns people who already received transgender identity cards under the previous law.

The petitioner has asked whether the amendment can retrospectively disturb rights and recognition granted before it came into force. The plea argues that uncertainty over legal status could affect employment records, professional enrolment, welfare benefits and access to government schemes.

Biswas has alternatively sought a clarification that the amended proviso will not affect people already recognised under the 2019 Act.

The petitioner has also requested the Centre to clearly state whether existing transgender identity cards will remain valid.

Wider Rights Implications

The case goes beyond the status of one identity card. It raises a larger constitutional question: whether gender recognition depends primarily on personal autonomy or on categories defined by the State.

Supporters of the amendment may argue that a clearer statutory definition is necessary to distinguish gender identity from sexual orientation and to prevent misuse of legal protections.

Rights groups, however, maintain that sexual orientation and gender identity are separate concepts and that excluding self-perceived identities may particularly affect trans men, trans-masculine people and others who do not conform to conventional categories.

The outcome may influence access to education, public employment, healthcare, official documentation and anti-discrimination protections.

What Happens Next

The Union Government will now have an opportunity to respond to the constitutional challenge. The Court may examine the language of the amendment alongside Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the principles laid down in the NALSA judgment.

The Bench will also consider whether the law can affect previously recognised identities and whether Parliament’s classification meets constitutional standards of equality, dignity and personal liberty.

The challenge to the Transgender Rights Amendment Act has therefore become an important public-interest case. Its outcome could determine how India balances legislative power with an individual’s right to define and preserve their gender identity.

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the makers to pull the film's teaser and related promotional material from every online platform within 24 hours, ruling on an application in Khan's ongoing personality rights suit. Justice Jyoti Singh said a person's reputation is "built with great effort, and once lost, is lost forever," warning that platforms including X, YouTube, Meta and Google would be ordered to execute the takedown themselves if the makers failed to comply in time. The court was notably critical of producer Amit Jani's conduct during proceedings, with Justice Singh remarking that he seemed to think he was "above the law" and was "only getting worse day by day."

Khan's case centres on his contention that the teaser and posters make him instantly identifiable without ever naming him — featuring a lookalike wearing his signature Firoza bracelet, holding a rifle, and drawing directly on his 1998 blackbuck poaching case. His legal team argued the film falsely implies underworld links and could prejudice ongoing proceedings, since aspects of the original blackbuck case remain pending before the Rajasthan High Court and Supreme Court. Counsel for Khan told the court there was "nothing left to the imagination" in the teaser, arguing it was "completely about" the actor, and pointed out he had already been acquitted in three of the four original criminal cases tied to the incident.

Responding to the order, the filmmakers said they respected the court process but believed the underlying legal question — over how far personality rights can restrict a film inspired by real events — deserved to be tested at the highest level. In a statement, the production side said they had decided to approach the Supreme Court to seek appropriate legal remedies, adding they had complete faith in the Indian judiciary to deliver justice in line with the Constitution and the law.

Monday's ruling built on an earlier December 2025 order in the same suit, in which Khan sought a permanent injunction protecting his personality and publicity rights, citing unauthorised use of his name, photographs, film stills and likeness — including AI-generated content — without his consent. That order had already directed platforms to treat Khan's complaints under India's IT Rules and act against unauthorised use of his image and voice.

With the makers now preparing a Supreme Court challenge, the case is shaping up as a significant test of how India's courts balance a filmmaker's creative latitude against a public figure's personality rights — particularly where a film draws heavily on a living person's real, contested legal history without naming them directly.

 The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it may order an independent investigation into allegations of police excesses during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest over the alleged NEET paper leak, observing that democratic protests are legitimate but any unlawful acts by either protesters or authorities must be held accountable.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan, was hearing a batch of petitions alleging excessive use of force by police during the July 20 demonstration in the national capital.

CJI Questions Need for Independent Investigation

During the hearing, the Chief Justice noted that the allegations placed before the court disclosed a prima facie case warranting further examination.

Questioning whether an impartial inquiry was required, the Bench remarked, "Why should there not be an independent probe into these allegations?"

The petitions allege that protesters, including students, women, advocates and media personnel, were subjected to excessive police force during the march, resulting in serious injuries.

Court Stresses Accountability for All Sides

The Bench observed that protests are an essential part of a democratic society and cannot, by themselves, justify the use of excessive force.

At the same time, the court emphasised that anyone who violated the law during the demonstrations—including protesters or officials—must face legal consequences.

The judges noted that once an appropriate legal framework is established, every individual responsible for violence or excesses should be held accountable.

High-Powered Committee Under Consideration

The Supreme Court indicated that it is considering the constitution of a high-powered committee to investigate incidents of violence not only in Delhi but also in other states where similar allegations have emerged.

The proposed panel may also examine broader issues relating to crowd management and policing during public demonstrations.

Uniform Protest Protocol Suggested

During the proceedings, the Bench highlighted the need for a nationwide protocol governing public protests and police crowd-control measures.

The court observed that demonstrations across the country have evolved significantly in recent years and existing procedures may require revision to balance public order with constitutional rights.

At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that law enforcement agencies often face difficult situations where peaceful protests may be infiltrated by violent elements, complicating crowd-control operations.

The judges said all stakeholders, including governments, police authorities and petitioners, should assist the court in developing a balanced framework.

Families of Injured Police Personnel Move Supreme Court

In a related development, the families of four Delhi Police personnel injured during the July 20 violence have also approached the Supreme Court.

The application has been filed on behalf of ACP Kailash Singh Bisht, ASI Sandeep, Constable Dheeraj and ASI Hemendar Rathi, who were injured while performing law-and-order duties during the protest.

The petition seeks directions to ensure that police personnel deployed during public demonstrations receive adequate protection of their right to life and personal liberty.

It also requests the court to frame comprehensive guidelines for safeguarding both male and female police personnel while handling protests and to ensure accountability for those allegedly responsible for attacks on law enforcement officials.

Case Expands Beyond Police Action

The latest application broadens the scope of the ongoing proceedings, which initially focused on allegations of police excesses against protesters.

The Supreme Court is now examining issues relating to the rights, responsibilities and safety of both demonstrators and police personnel, while also considering broader institutional reforms for managing public protests across the country.

The matter is expected to come up for further hearing as the court considers the framework for an independent inquiry and nationwide guidelines.

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected right and said the police cannot resort to a lathicharge merely because people are demonstrating. The remarks came while hearing a batch of petitions alleging excessive police force against students protesting examination paper leaks during the Parliament march held on July 20.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan said allegations of police excess should be independently examined. The court also stressed the need for uniform national guidelines governing police action during public demonstrations, observing that discipline is essential in a democracy but peaceful protests must remain protected.

The observations assume significance as the Centre prepares to push the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Parliament, a legislation aimed at strengthening anti-paper leak laws following the nationwide NEET controversy.

Court Questions Police Response

During the hearing, the Bench underlined that agitation alone cannot justify the use of force by law enforcement agencies.

The judges noted that every allegation of excessive police action deserves impartial scrutiny and suggested that uniform operating procedures should be evolved for handling demonstrations across the country. According to the court, maintaining public order and protecting citizens' constitutional rights must go hand in hand.

Parliament March Turned Violent

The petitions relate to the July 20 Parliament march organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) over the alleged NEET paper leak.

The protest began at Jantar Mantar and later moved towards Parliament, with demonstrators marching through Parliament Street, Janpath Crossing, Kartavya Path and Vijay Chowk.

According to reports, clashes erupted after some protesters allegedly breached police barricades and attempted to move towards Parliament. Police responded with tear gas and lathicharge, while incidents of stone-pelting were also reported. More than 100 people, including police personnel and protesters, were reportedly injured during the violence.

The protest site was cleared by evening, although demonstrators returned later that night to resume their agitation.

Matter Reached Supreme Court Multiple Times

The issue has come before the Supreme Court on several occasions over the past two months.

In May, a petition sought a CBI investigation into those associated with the Cockroach Janta Party. The court declined urgent listing, observing there was no immediate emergency.

After the July 20 protest, another petition sought an inquiry into the alleged police assault on demonstrators. At that stage, the Bench declined immediate intervention, stating that it was not relying on video clips placed before it.

A fresh plea was later filed seeking restraint on police action against students participating in protests. The court agreed to hear the matter through the regular listing process.

During Monday's proceedings, the Chief Justice also clarified that reports claiming the court had earlier refused to hear petitions on the issue were inaccurate. He said no formal writ petition had been before the Bench at that stage.

Delhi High Court Also Hearing Case

Separate petitions challenging the police action are also pending before the Delhi High Court.

The High Court has already sought responses from the Union government and Delhi Police while directing authorities to preserve CCTV footage, videography and all records related to the July 20 protest.

Background

The student-led agitation over alleged examination paper leaks continued for 36 days before ending on July 25 following the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Pradhan resigned amid mounting pressure over the NEET paper leak controversy, saying recent developments had deeply saddened him.

Social activist Sonam Wangchuk, who had been observing a hunger strike alongside protesting students, also ended his fast after receiving assurances from the government regarding examination reforms.

The Supreme Court's observations now place fresh focus on balancing citizens' right to peaceful protest with the state's responsibility to maintain law and order, even as Parliament prepares to debate tougher legislation against examination malpractices.