India: Crackdown on peaceful protesters in New Delhi raises serious human rights concerns.

Photo by Kaustav Das on pexels.com 

What began as a youth-led campaign for justice over examination irregularities quickly became a defining test of India’s commitment to protecting fundamental rights, particularly the freedoms of peaceful assembly, expression, and accountability. As the movement grew into nationwide protests demanding education reform and the resignation of the Education Minister, it revealed both the power of civic mobilisation and the mounting challenges faced by those exercising their democratic rights. 

The protests, organised by the youth movement Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), were sparked by allegations of widespread question paper leaks in the NEET-UG, India’s highly competitive medical school entrance examination. In May 2026, after claims that the integrity of the proof had been compromised, the testing agency cancelled the results, forcing more than two million students to retake the test. The decision triggered widespread frustration, with many describing months of uncertainty, psychological distress, and financial hardship. 

As demonstrations expanded, protesters called for greater transparency in the education system, compensation for affected families, and the resignation of the Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.  On 20 July, thousands marched towards Parliament in New Delhi to press their demands. Rather than facilitating the peaceful assembly, authorities reportedly erected barricades to prevent protesters from reaching Parliament, suspended metro services and mobile internet, and used batons and tear gas to disperse demonstrators. Videos shared online also appear to show police throwing stones at protesters, raising serious concerns over the unnecessary and disproportionate use of force.

These concerns had already intensified two days earlier, on 18 July, when activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was on hunger strike in support of the demonstrations, was reportedly removed by Delhi Police and admitted to hospital against his wishes on the twenty-first day of his fast. The incident further fuelled criticism over the authorities’ approach towards peaceful forms of protest.

The government's subsequent decision to invoke powers under the National Security Act (NSA) added another layer of concern. The legislation permits indeed authorities to hold individuals for up to twelve months without charge or trial on the basis of a perceived future threat to public order or national security. Those affected may be denied prompt access to legal representation, while authorities can delay informing them of the reasons for their arrest and judicial oversight remains limited. Such provisions have long been criticised for undermining fair trial guarantees and increasing the risk of arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

The response to the demonstrations has renewed scrutiny of India’s obligations under both domestic and international law. The right to peaceful assembly requires authorities not only to avoid unlawful interference but also to actively facilitate public participation. Restrictions on protests must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate, while any allegations of excessive force must be promptly and independently investigated.

Despite these challenges, the movement ultimately showed the impact of sustained civic mobilisation. After days of demonstrations and growing public pressure, Dharmendra Pradhan resigned from his position on 25 July, marking a significant moment for the youth-led campaign and prompting celebrations among protesters. The CJP described this result as a victory for democracy, while continuing to call for broader reforms to address failures within the education system.

The events in New Delhi therefore represent both a warning and a reminder. Allegations of excessive force, restrictions on assembly, and the possible use of preventive detention powers raise serious human rights concerns. At the same time, the movement’s success illustrates the essential role of peaceful protest in holding authorities accountable. Protecting the right to dissent remains central to ensuring that democratic institutions respond to public demands rather than suppress them.

written by Clara Pescatori