CJI Calls Reports ‘False’, Says No Petition Filed On July 20 Student Protest; Slams ‘Reckless’ Media Coverage
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday strongly criticised media reports claiming that he had refused an urgent hearing on a plea related to the July 20 police action against student protesters, clarifying that no writ petition had been filed before the Supreme Court.
Addressing the issue during court proceedings, the CJI said the reports were "completely false" and explained that what had reached him was merely a representation rather than a legally filed petition. He questioned how such a representation could be treated as a writ petition and expressed concern over what he described as irresponsible reporting.
The remarks came while advocates were mentioning urgent matters before the court. Referring to the controversy, the Chief Justice stated that no petition had been filed even by Friday morning and rejected suggestions that the court had declined to hear the matter.
The clarification follows Wednesday's proceedings, when a lawyer requested an urgent hearing over the alleged police action during the Cockroach Janta Party-led protest march in Delhi on July 20. The counsel argued that students had been subjected to excessive force and informed the court that video recordings of the incident were available.
At that stage, the bench declined to consider the request, making it clear that it would not examine video footage during the mentioning process. The court observed that such material could not be evaluated while deciding whether to grant urgent listing and asked the lawyer not to press the issue further.
The July 20 protest witnessed clashes between demonstrators and security personnel after protesters attempted to march towards Parliament while demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the alleged NEET examination paper leak.
Reiterating his position on Friday, the Chief Justice emphasised that reports claiming he had refused an urgent hearing were inaccurate because no formal petition had been placed before the Supreme Court. He maintained that only a representation had been received, and therefore the media narrative suggesting judicial refusal was without factual basis.
