New Delhi, Jul 28: Ending a week-long logjam, the Lok Sabha on Tuesday began a discussion on the anti-paper leak Bill, with Union minister Jitendra Singh describing it as a reaffirmation of the government’s commitment to safeguard the welfare of students and the youth.

Speaking on the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, the minister of state in the PMO said the Modi government finished an unaccomplished task to bring a law to prevent examination malpractices in 2024.

“Incidents of paper leaks have taken place in various states ruled by different parties… The anti-paper leak Bill is a reaffirmation of the government’s commitment to safeguard the welfare of students and youth. The amendment… (is being) brought to make the law more stringent,” Singh said.

RSP MP N K Premchandran moved that the Bill should be circulated for stakeholder consultations till December 1, so that it can be made more fruitful.

The government introduced the Bill in the Lok Sabha on Monday, days after student protests over the NEET fiasco led to Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation as education minister, to provide for stricter punishment of up to 10 years in jail and a heftier fine of Rs 50 lakh for paper leaks.

The Bill was introduced by Singh amid sloganeering by the opposition demanding a response from the government over the police crackdown on students during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led July 20 protest march to Parliament.

However, no discussion could take place on the Bill amid the din on Monday.

The opposition has been raking up the NEET paper leak issue since the Monsoon session began on July 20. As a result, no legislative business could be taken up until Monday, except for the introduction of two Bills.

New Delhi, Jul 28: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said a Special Investigation Team (SIT) may be set up to ensure a fair, transparent and thorough probe into all incidents of violence during the recent student protests. The law must take its course once there is violation of “defined protocol”, the apex court said.

Dealing with a batch of pleas alleging police excesses against students protesting irregularities in exams and the NEET paper leak across the country, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant referred to many incidents of violence.

At the outset, the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, asked why there should not be an independent probe into the allegations.

“Whosoever committed excesses, took law in their hands should be taken to task,” the CJI said.

Taking note of the submissions of lawyers, the bench said a fair and independent probe into all allegations related to police excesses on protesting NEET students was required.

“Once there is violation of defined protocol, law must take care of it,” the bench said. The CJI said that the bench is mulling independent, transparent and thorough probe into all allegations.

A probe is also required to ascertain the attacks on 250 policemen and whether they were by students or some “miscreants”, the court said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said students will not indulge in violence against police personnel, but some miscreants are involved in the incidents. Miscreants involved in murder, rape and NDPS cases entered the protest and perpetrated violence on police personnel, he added.

The hearing is underway.

On Monday, the bench said an agitation cannot justify “police excesses” or a ‘lathi charge’. The bench also said that the right to peaceful protest is absolutely guaranteed.

The Cockroach Janta Party-led march on July 20 in Delhi witnessed clashes between protesters and security personnel, who used lathis and teargas shells to disperse crowds attempting to move towards Parliament.

The protesters were demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET paper leak issue.

New Delhi, Jul 27: A petition was filed in Supreme Court on Monday by a former IPS officer and two persons, who claimed to have been injured by pellet guns fired during the recent Cockroach Janta Party-led Parliament march to protest against NEET paper leak.

The petition filed by Yashovardhan Azad, Prashant Kumar and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori through advocate Vrinda Grover, sought direction for “decommissioning or banning the use of wholly or partly metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets, fired from pump action rifles or Projectile Action Guns (PAG) for dispersal of civilian assemblies by law enforcement agencies”.

Kumar (25), an artist, said he was present at the Sansad Chalo march on July 20 as a peaceful protester and claimed that he received pellet injuries from firing by Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel without provocation or aggression from his end.

Mansoori (26), on the other hand, said he was at Delhi’s Connaught Place after attending to passport and visa-related work and had received pellet injuries from RAF firing despite there being no provocation or aggression from his end.

The plea said, “On July 20, 2026, during the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march organised by the Cockroach Janata Party as part of a protest regarding rampant paper leaks wreaking the credibility of higher education in India, the Delhi Police used the assistance of the CRPF’s Rapid Action Force for crowd management.

“Petitioner Nos 2 and 3 personally witnessed that around 4-4.30 pm on that day, the police and RAF personnel incessantly fired tear gas shells and resorted to lathi charge and pushed the protestors towards the inner circle of Connaught Place, New Delhi.”

It further said pertinently, no water cannons were used, and no announcements were made about the impending use of force. While the protesters were fleeing, with many raising their arms up as if in “surrender” mode, despite no provocation, RAF personnel suddenly fired pump action gun(s), releasing a wide spray of splinter-like pellets, which penetrated the bodies of Petitioner Nos 2 and 3, causing immediate pain and bleeding.

The petitioners said the Right to Freedom of Assembly is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right, amenable to be curbed only through reasonable restrictions imposed pursuant to Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India.

They added that the restrictions imposed under Article 19(3), to pass the test of being a “reasonable restriction”, must be demonstrably compliant with the doctrines of necessity and proportionality as laid down in various judgments of the Supreme Court.

“… projectile action guns are per se unfit for dispersal of peaceful assemblies, and the petitioners contend that use of such weapons should be banned or decommissioned in deployment of security personnel when dealing with civilian assemblies,” the petitioners said.

They said the sporadic and unpredictable nature of the trajectory of pellets once fired makes pellet guns an unreasonable, arbitrary and dangerous tool unfit for deployment to disperse civilian assemblies.

“The very mechanism of the pellets disqualifies them from being a legally valid option for crowd control, as it cannot be qualitatively stated to fall within the ‘least amount of necessary force’ at any given point of time, in view of its erratic kinetic projectile movement,” the petition said.

Besides seeking decommissioning or banning the use of pellet guns wholly or partly, the petitioners sought exemplary compensation to all victims of pellet injuries caused by the State action on July 20 in New Delhi, as well as to ensure their complete medical treatment, care and rehabilitation.