"Court-constituted fact-finding committees fill gaps in police accountability but cannot substitute for institutional reform." Critically examine in the context of recent protest-related inquiries.

After the violence of 20 July 2026 during the NEET-UG paper-leak protests, the Supreme Court set up a High Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) under former SC judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy [1]. Its mandate covers alleged police brutality and sexual abuse of women protesters. Such panels close urgent accountability gaps, but their recent record shows that they cannot replace permanent oversight.

How court-constituted committees fill gaps

• Independence: A retired judge in the chair is outside the police chain of command and outside the reach of the state government. This matters in a politically charged case that led to the Education Minister's resignation [1].
• Continuing judicial oversight: The Bench under CJI Surya Kant reviewed the HPEC's Action Taken Report of 31 October 2026 [1]. The case stays open under continuing mandamus, which the Court draws from its powers under Articles 32 and 142.
• Procedural fairness: The portal had separate windows for protesters and police personnel (audi alteram partem, "hear the other side"). It allowed anonymous filing without name, phone number, address or Aadhaar [1].
• Flexible evidence routes: When few complaints arrived, the Court let petitioners send video clips directly to the panel [1]. This takes the burden of proof off frightened victims.

Why they cannot substitute for institutional reform

• Low trust: Very few complaints came through the portal, and none came by email, post or in person [1]. Fear of reprisal from local police cannot be fixed by one portal.
• Short, one-incident life: The portal was open for only about three weeks before the ATR [1]. Each panel ends with its case, so the next protest needs a new panel.
• Permanent bodies remain weak: Prakash Singh (2006) ordered Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) [2]. 31 states/UTs had set them up by 2022 [2], yet the Court still built its own panel. That suggests the existing PCAs are not trusted.
• State control: "Police" is a State List subject. Haryana's 2022 amendment changed its PCA's inquiry powers [2], which shows how states can dilute oversight.

Conclusion

Court-constituted committees are a useful emergency remedy that brings independence and judicial supervision, but they treat symptoms, not causes. The way forward is to make PCAs statutorily independent and to require them to publish their complaint numbers and outcomes. They should also offer in-person, gender-sensitive hearings and protect witnesses, as Prakash Singh intended. Only then will the Article 21 guarantee of dignity hold for every protester without a fresh Supreme Court order each time.