Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday, 25 July 2025, publicly rebutted media reports claiming he had refused to list a petition concerning alleged police action against student protesters during the 'Sansad Chalo' march, stating categorically that no writ petition had ever been filed before the Supreme Court. The CJI clarified in open court that only a letter representation had been submitted — a document that carries no legal standing equivalent to a formal writ petition.

What CJI Surya Kant Said in Open Court

Speaking directly from the bench, CJI Kant called the media reports “completely false” and the product of “irresponsible reporting.” He said: “In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter was filed, and the media is absolutely free from all responsibility, falsely reporting that the Chief Justice refused to list the matter. Till morning 10 a.m., not a single page has been filed. It was one representation. How can I treat the representation as a writ petition? And people start recklessly reporting this.”

The CJI added that he had personally cross-checked with the Supreme Court Registry before making the clarification. “I checked with the Registry and not a paper was filed,” he stated, also referencing advocate Narendra Mishra, who had submitted the letter representation.

Background: The Sansad Chalo Protest and NEET-UG 2026

The controversy stems from the July 20 march to Parliament, in which students protested alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG 2026 examination and demanded structural reforms at the National Testing Agency (NTA), including its dissolution. Students and civil society groups alleged that Delhi Police used excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, with some accounts referencing videos purportedly showing unidentified persons in civilian clothing assaulting protesters in the presence of police personnel.

Earlier in the week, when a counsel sought an urgent hearing before the CJI Kant-led bench — also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana — and cited videos of alleged police brutality, the bench declined, saying: “We are not interested in videos. We don’t have time to watch.” The bench had also told the counsel: “Please don’t waste our time and don’t waste yours. Your time is more valuable than ours.”

What the Letter Representation Sought

Advocate Narendra Mishra had addressed the letter representation to CJI Kant, seeking the apex court’s suo motu intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution. The representation alleged violations of fundamental rights during the handling of the protest and sought directions to investigate claims that unidentified individuals in civilian clothes assaulted peaceful protesters in the presence of police. It also sought preservation of all electronic evidence, including drone footage, body-camera recordings, wireless communication logs, and social media videos related to the incident.

Centre's Assurances and Sonam Wangchuk's Fast

Separately, the Centre on Friday reiterated its commitment to ensuring justice for students and to taking strict action against those who compromise the integrity of public examinations. Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh, along with Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda, met activist Sonam Wangchuk at Medanta Hospital in Gurugram, following which Wangchuk ended his 26-day hunger strike.

According to the government, it has assured a detailed discussion in Parliament on paper leaks and examination reforms, is positively considering not registering cases against those who protested peacefully at Jantar Mantar and during the July 20 march, and is also weighing suitable compensation for families of students who allegedly died by suicide in connection with the NEET paper leak controversy.

With the Supreme Court's position now clarified and the Centre engaging with protesters' demands, the focus shifts to whether Parliament will take up examination reform legislation in the ongoing session.