Back
Supreme Court Reviews Police Intimidation Allegations Involving Volunteer Junaid Malik Amid NEET Protests Crisis
In a significant move concerning the protection of during public agitations, the is set to consider an intervention application filed by Junaid Malik, a volunteer who provided food and water during the 2026 NEET-UG examination protest at Jantar Mantar. Malik, a law graduate, claims he was subjected to and that his family members were coerced into silence by police authorities.
The Genesis of the Dispute
The NEET-UG 2026, which affected approximately 22 lakh candidates, was cancelled following reports of a question paper leak. The ensuing student-led protest at Jantar Mantar saw citizens from across the country rallying for transparency and accountability. Malik, whose efforts as a food distribution volunteer earned media recognition, alleges that this visibility made him a target of state machinery.
The applicant details a harrowing account of being intercepted on , after receiving an anti-rabies injection at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. He claims to have been abducted by unidentified police personnel in a vehicle, blindfolded, and interrogated about funding sources for the protest. He further alleged being threatened with the invocation of the before being abandoned in a remote forest area near Dehradun.
Coercive Actions Against Family
The petition extends beyond Malik’s ordeal, detailing systemic pressure on his relatives. The applicant alleges that officers, including those identified as Parmod Kumar and Tinku Tyagi, raided his residence without documentation, damaged property, and detained his father. Similar actions were reportedly carried out in Meerut against his sister’s in-laws. The overarching claim is that these actions were psychological levers intended to force Malik to cease his involvement in the ongoing protests.
Legal Analysis: The Constitutional Safeguards
The application invokes the landmark ruling in , asserting that state action depriving a person of liberty must be "." The petitioner emphasizes that under , the police are bound by strict procedural mandates, such as the preparation of and the immediate notification of family members—transparency safeguards which the petitioner alleges were entirely bypassed.
Citing , the petition underscores that “ by police authorities against persons participating in a peaceful protest... constitutes a violation of the guaranteed under .”
Key Observations
The judgment captures the gravity of the allegations, with the petitioner highlighting:
-
"The detention of the family members, particularly when undertaken purportedly to exert pressure upon the Applicant, represents an abuse of the coercive powers of the State and strikes at the very core of the ."
-
"In curbing such violence or dispersing , police has to accomplish its task with utmost care, deftness and precision."
-
"The statutory power of the police to disperse an assembly is a power to restore public order and not a licence to assault or punish citizens."
Court’s Decision and Implications
By seeking to intervene in the existing filed by Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha, Malik aims to secure judicial protection against further coercive state action. The Court's upcoming consideration of this matter holds significant weight, as it will determine whether the state’s exercise of power strictly adhered to constitutional limitations or if it morphed into an instrument of intimidation. Should the allegations be substantiated, the ruling may reinforce the judiciary’s role as the ultimate arbiter in protecting individuals from retaliatory measures for exercising their fundamental right to dissent.
