Back
Warns UAPA Could Be Used Against CJP Protesters, Calls For Independent Investigation
Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP has issued a stark legal warning in the wake of the crackdown on student protesters demanding accountability for examination irregularities. Sibal cautioned that unless the police claims of personnel injuries are independently verified, peaceful protesters could find themselves booked under the stringent (UAPA), much like what transpired after the 2020 Delhi anti‑CAA demonstrations. His call for an impartial probe has cast a long shadow over the use of anti‑terror laws in protest‑related cases and reignited debate on police accountability and the right to dissent.
The Protest and Its Aftermath
On July 20 and 21, 2026, thousands of demonstrators under the banner of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) marched towards Parliament as part of the “Sansad Chalo” movement, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over repeated paper leaks, including the NEET‑UG examination. The , along with personnel, used baton charges and tear gas to disperse the crowd, leading to multiple injuries among the protesters. In the hours that followed, political leaders from the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, and other opposition parties were detained while staging solidarity sit‑ins near the Prime Minister’s residence.
Against this volatile backdrop, held a press conference on July 21 and directly challenged the official narrative. He drew a deliberate parallel with the aftermath of the 2020 Delhi riots, where, he alleged, “the injured became the accused.” Sibal warned that a similar pattern could unfold now: police personnel filing belated , naming specific protesters, and slapping UAPA provisions that could keep them in custody for years.
The Legal Nightmare of UAPA and Lessons from Delhi Riots
Sibal’s central argument is that without independent verification of the injuries sustained by the police, the state will have a free hand to criminalize dissent. “My concern is, what happened in the Delhi riots when the injured became the accused will happen here. We know who all were the targets in the Delhi riots, and we all know who targeted them, and we all know what kind of statements were being made, and the people targeted were kept in jail for years for no fault of theirs. Some of them are still in jail,” he stated.
The senior lawyer specifically demanded that the government immediately disclose the names of every injured police officer, along with their , the nature of injuries, and the precise time and circumstances of hospitalisation. He argued that this transparency was essential to prevent “belated FIRs” that could implicate peaceful marchers in crimes they never committed. Under , mere membership or association with a group alleged to have committed a terrorist act can invite long‑term detention with stringent conditions, making pre‑emptive disclosure critical for any future defense.
This is not an abstract fear. In the aftermath of the 2020 riots, several student activists, academics, and human rights defenders were charged under the UAPA based on contested evidence and police testimonies. Many spent over three years in jail before securing . Sibal’s warning resonates with a legal community that has repeatedly questioned the threshold for invoking anti‑terror statutes in protest‑related cases.
Police Denials and FIRs: A Contest of Facts
swiftly issued a “Fake News Alert” on social media, denying allegations that pellet guns were used against the CJP protesters. “Reports claiming that police forces are using pellet guns against peaceful protesters are completely false and misleading,” the police said, adding that appropriate legal action would be taken against those spreading rumours. By the end of July 21, at least five FIRs had been registered at Parliament Street and Connaught Place police stations, invoking the , , and . Authorities indicated that more cases were likely.
Sibal, however, turned the tables. He questioned the origin of the stones and a damaged van that appeared at the protest site, hinting that they may have been planted to justify force and later criminal cases. “If the children wanted to be violent, they would have been when Sonam Wangchuk was taken away by the police… They were not violent, so then why were stones brought there, and who brought that truck and van, which was dented? First, an investigation should be done there,” he said. This line of inquiry—developing a counter‑narrative of orchestrated violence—could become a crucial element in any future defense of the protesters.
Political Reactions and Broadening Legal Implications
The crackdown sparked a swift and coordinated political backlash. Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, along with party president Mallikarjun Kharge, were detained while protesting near the Prime Minister’s residence. AKhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party alleged that plainclothes officers were assaulting demonstrators, comparing the scenes to “Hitler’s private army.” Arvind Kejriwal, the AAP national convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister, visited police stations, assured full legal and medical aid, and launched a dedicated helpline for injured protesters. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India condemned the police action as a “heartbreaking assault on the very soul of our democracy.”
These political developments have a direct legal dimension. When senior opposition figures are detained and activists face potential UAPA charges, the judiciary will inevitably be called upon to examine the of police action and the validity of the FIRs. The involvement of high‑profile leaders also raises the stakes for any subsequent or .
’s Limited Intervention
The , on July 21, declined to pass any urgent order on a petition alleging excessive police force during the protest. A bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia remarked, “Don’t drag the court into all this,” and listed the matter for a regular hearing the next day. The court’s hesitancy suggests a reluctance to interfere in ongoing police operations at the preliminary stage, but it does not close the door on judicial scrutiny. Historically, the High Court and the have intervened in protest‑related cases when post‑facto evidence of brutality or emerges.
Separately, the High Court did act on the plea of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was on an indefinite hunger strike. It permitted his transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital in Gurugram, with a direction for continuous medical monitoring. While limited, this order underlines that the judiciary will step in to protect the of protesters when there is a clear medical consensus.
Impact on Legal Practice and Criminal Justice
For legal professionals, the unfolding events reinforce the need for rigorous documentation and immediate legal intervention. Sibal’s call for transparent mirrors a best practice that defense lawyers regularly demand in and protest‑related prosecutions. If the police fail to provide such details voluntarily, seeking mandatory disclosure could become the first line of defense.
Moreover, the repeated mention of the Delhi riots precedent is a reminder that law firms and independent counsel must proactively track patterns of UAPA invocation. The upcoming days may see a surge in applications and from detained protesters, requiring courts to balance national security concerns with under . The case also highlights the tension between the government’s position—that the protesters themselves sought talks—and the opposition’s narrative that the crackdown was a premeditated response to a peaceful assembly.
Conclusion
’s warning has placed the spotlight on a legal fault line that has run through India’s protest landscape for years: the potential for anti‑terror laws to become a tool for counter‑protest prosecutions. As the government registers FIRs and the opposition rallies behind the students, the courts will be asked to adjudicate not just the immediate cases but the broader principle of police accountability. The demand for an independent investigation into the injuries—of both police and protesters—is more than a political slogan; it is a procedural safeguard that the criminal justice system must uphold to preserve the legitimacy of its own actions. The legal community, therefore, watches closely as these events unfold on the streets and, soon, in the courtrooms.
