The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, declined to urgently entertain a plea concerning police actions during student protests that took place at Jantar Mantar. These protests organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) targeted the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and highlighted other pressing issues regarding the examination process.
The request for an urgent hearing appeared before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Counsel for the petitioner sought immediate intervention based on the protesters’ grievances.
In a direct response, the Chief Justice advised the lawyer not to waste the court’s time, stating, “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time.”
The lawyer highlighted the public significance of the protest, which revolved around the NEET-UG examination scandal, examination conduct, and the demand for reforms within the National Testing Agency (NTA).
Upon the submission of videos allegedly capturing the police’s forceful actions against the demonstrators, Chief Justice Kant reiterated, “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch.”
The bench ultimately chose not to review the request for immediate hearing, maintaining that it would not influence their stance on the matter itself.
This decision follows a similar ruling from the Delhi High Court, which had also rejected a plea concerning the police action during these protests. The CJP has intensified its demonstration efforts recently, including a march towards Parliament, in response to the purported NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. Protesters have called for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and suggested significant changes to the examination system.
Reports indicate that clashes occurred between protesters and police during these rallies, leading to claims of excessive force and numerous detentions. Advocates for the students urge that their peaceful demonstrations intended to draw attention to educational injustices nationwide.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court’s comments were specifically about the urgency of the hearing request and did not imply any judgment on the substantive issues raised in the petition.
