Court-appointed enquiry committees have become a key tool to ensure accountability for police excesses. Critically examine their effectiveness and limitations.

When the police themselves are accused, a probe ordered by the government risks being judge in its own cause. The Supreme Court has set up a five-member High Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC), chaired by retired Justice R. Subhash Reddy, to probe alleged pellet-gun use against NEET protesters at Jantar Mantar in July 2026 [1]. The case shows what such panels can do and where they fall short.

Effectiveness

• Independence: The Court set up the panel while hearing petitions (Arts. 32/142). The government being accused did not appoint it, unlike panels under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 [1].
• Access and witness safety: Anyone affected can walk in to the hearings on 29–30 October 2026, and an online portal protects vulnerable witnesses. Both lower the risk of intimidation [1].
• Balanced fact-finding: The panel examines excessive force, harassment of women protesters and property damage "on both sides". This makes its findings more credible [1].
• Rights-based yardstick: Police conduct is tested against peaceful protest as a fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(a)/(b), as held in MKSS v. Union of India (2018) [2]. It is also tested against the UN principles of necessity and proportionality [3].

Limitations

• Only advisory: The report binds no one until the Court acts on it. The Court may issue general advice instead of ordering action against named officers [1].
• Delay: Three months separate the July protests from the October hearings. In that time injuries heal and memories fade [1].
• Limited reach: There are only two short sittings (11.30 a.m.–3 p.m.), and only in Delhi. Students from other states may be left out [1].
• No rules to judge against: India has no public weapon-by-weapon rulebook (SOP) for less-lethal weapons like the one in OHCHR's 2020 Guidance [4]. Without one, it is hard to pin blame for pellet use on individual officers.
• Treats the symptom: The panel looks only at the violence, not the NEET grievance that caused the protest [1].

Court-appointed panels bring an independence and credibility that internal police inquiries lack, but their real value depends on what follows. Time-bound mandates, Court-enforced follow-up, SOPs aligned with UN standards, and working Police Complaints Authorities as directed in Prakash Singh (2006) can turn fact-finding into real accountability. That would uphold the dignity and bodily integrity guaranteed by Article 21.