Court-monitored inquiries have become the default accountability mechanism for protest policing in India. Critically examine their efficacy vis-à-vis executive and statutory mechanisms.

The Supreme Court set up a High Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) to probe violence during the July 2026 NEET paper-leak protests near Jantar Mantar [1]. This shows courts filling a gap in accountability left by executive and statutory bodies. These inquiries work well in the case before them but do little to fix the system.

Strengths over executive and statutory mechanisms

• Independence: Magisterial probes and commissions under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 are set up by the same government whose police are accused. The HPEC's scope is fixed by the Court's own orders of 18 August and 10 September 2026 [1].
• Balanced, focused remit: It looks first at pellet guns, targeted harassment of women protesters and excess "on either side" [1]. Covering both sides makes its findings harder to dismiss.
• Access for victims: Its portal hpec.nic.in keeps complainants' identities confidential and offers witness protection, and police personnel can complain too [1]. By contrast, the NHRC can only make recommendations, which carry little deterrent force.
• Clear standards: It can test each use of force for legality, necessity, proportionality, accountability and non-discrimination [3].

Limitations

• Ad hoc and reactive: The panel ends when the case ends. It sets no national rule for pellet guns, so the cycle of violence, petition and new panel can repeat.
• Bypasses existing institutions: Prakash Singh (2006) directed States to set up Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) [4]. Relying on courts lets these bodies stay weak and strains the separation of powers.
• Still depends on the executive: The HPEC's statement came through the MHA, which controls Delhi Police [1]. This can affect how independent it looks to witnesses.
• Unclear powers: Public reports do not give its membership, deadline or whether its findings are binding [1]. Courts are also already overburdened.
• Treats the symptom, not the cause: It does not address exam integrity, the issue that brought students onto the streets.

Court-monitored inquiries are therefore credible stopgaps, not a lasting solution. The way forward is to make PCAs work, strengthen the NHRC and have the MHA issue weapon-by-weapon crowd-control rules modelled on the OHCHR guidance [2]. That would protect the rights under Articles 19(1)(b) and 21 and serve SDG 16 through everyday institutions rather than one-off judicial action.