The Supreme Court’s decision to constitute a high-powered panel to examine allegations of police excesses during the student protests is a welcome assertion of constitutional safeguards. The proposed panel of retired judges, a former DGP and a former CBI director must conduct a thorough, impartial fact-finding exercise into allegations of excessive force, sexual assault, online harassment and the targeting of vulnerable protesters. The court’s reminder that peaceful protest and dissent are protected under Article 19 is particularly significant in a democracy.
At the same time, the right to protest cannot become a shield for violence against police personnel or the destruction of public property. The allegations on both sides must therefore be examined objectively, without allowing political considerations to influence the process. The Supreme Court’s indication that it may invoke Article 142 to quash FIRs that clearly and indisputably concern students also reflects the need to prevent young people from being burdened by criminal cases merely for exercising their democratic rights. However, genuine offenders must remain accountable, regardless of whether they are protesters or members of the authorities.
The larger issue is the balance between maintaining public order and protecting civil liberties. Excessive policing can deepen public anger, while unchecked violence can undermine legitimate protests. The committee must establish facts transparently, examine video and CCTV evidence and give victims a meaningful opportunity to be heard. More importantly, its findings should lead to accountability wherever wrongdoing is established. A democracy is strengthened not when dissent is silenced, but when peaceful dissent is protected while violence is dealt with firmly and fairly.