CJI Surya Kant Turns Down Urgent Listing of Petition Over Police Action on CJP Protestors

On a sweltering afternoon in Delhi, the nation’s top judge, Chief Justice Surya Kant, sent a blunt message to a group of protestors who had taken to the streets to call for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. When a senior lawyer knocked on the Supreme Court’s door with a petition demanding that the Court take "suo‑motu" cognizance of what the protestors called a police crackdown, the CJI simply replied, “We don’t have time to watch videos. We are not interested.”

The petition, filed on July 22 2026, centered on a march led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) that started from Jantar Mantar and stretched all the way to Parliament. The demonstrators, many of whom were students, had set up a 31‑day sit‑in at the historic protest site, invoking the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B.R. Ambedkar. Their grievance? They wanted Mr Pradhan to step down over what they described as “failed education policies.”

According to the filing, videos circulating on social media showed Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF) using batons, pepper‑spray and even water cannons to disperse the crowd. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court to order a fresh, independent judicial inquiry, to direct that FIRs be lodged against the police officers involved, and to step in suo‑motu to protect fundamental rights.

But the Supreme Court’s response was swift and, to many observers, startlingly terse. Surya Kant said the Court was not prepared to grant an urgent listing, noting that the matter could be pursued through the regular judicial process. “We have a docket full of cases that need our attention,” he is reported to have said, adding that the Court could not “waste time on videos that are already out there.”

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court had already granted an urgent listing for a separate public‑interest litigation that alleged excessive force by the police during the same march. In a counter‑move, the Delhi Police on Wednesday filed ten FIRs against various participants, alleging violations ranging from unlawful assembly to damage to public property.

CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka, speaking to ANI, complained that a “narrative” was being built that the protestors were violent, when in reality they had sat peacefully for a month. He urged the Supreme Court to “listen to the voice of the people” and reminded everyone that peaceful dissent is a cornerstone of Indian democracy.

While the petition remains pending, the episode has sparked a fresh debate about the balance between law‑and‑order imperatives and the right to protest. Whether the Supreme Court will revisit the matter later this year remains to be seen, but the incident has already left an imprint on the national conversation about policing, dissent, and the judiciary’s role in mediating the two.