Supreme Court Rejects Urgent Hearing on Student Protest Plea

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday declined to grant an urgent hearing on a plea challenging police actions during a protest led by student activists at Jantar Mantar. The protest, organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), focused on the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and demanded reforms in the National Testing Agency (NTA).

This plea was brought before a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with the petitioner’s counsel seeking immediate intervention. The Chief Justice dismissed the request, stating, “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time.” This response underscores an apparent unwillingness from the highest court to engage prematurely with the matter.

The attorney representing the students expressed concern over the police’s handling of the situation, emphasizing that the students were protesting issues of significant public importance, including the examination’s integrity and the need for systemic reform within the NTA.

While discussing videos that surfaced purportedly showing police brutality towards protesters, Chief Justice Kant remarked, “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch.” This dismissive attitude reflects a stark focus on procedural efficiency rather than the contentions raised in the petition.

The bench ultimately decided against entertaining the plea for urgent hearing. This development closely follows a similar rejection from the Delhi High Court, which also refused to prioritize a related plea concerning police action during the protests.

The CJP has organized these protests to highlight grievances against the NEET-UG 2026 examination process, particularly taking aim at Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Tension escalated during their march toward Parliament, where reported scuffles with police prompted accusations of excessive force and led to multiple arrests.

Crucially, the Supreme Court’s remarks pertained only to the requests for urgent hearings and did not engage deeply with the allegations presented. This decision raises essential questions surrounding the judicial system’s responsiveness to public demonstrations and issues that affect students and the education system at large.

Overall, the request for intervention surfaced amid a climate of frustration among students regarding examination policies. As stakeholders await further developments, the rejection signifies a challenge for activists advocating for reforms in India’s competitive examination landscape.