Examine the Supreme Court's use of writ jurisdiction to enforce police accountability across state boundaries, with reference to recent protest-related cases.

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs — mandamus, habeas corpus and others — for enforcement of fundamental rights, mirrored for High Courts in Article 226 [2]. Recent NEET protest-related litigation shows this power being used not merely to declare rights, but to supervise day-to-day police conduct across State lines.

How the writ power is being exercised

• Continuing mandamus: the Court retains seisin of the matter and passes successive directions, appointing a high-powered enquiry committee of retired judges and police chiefs to probe alleged excesses against NEET protesters [1].
• Compelling action on a registered FIR: an FIR at Parliament Street police station having produced little movement, the Bench directed the State's law officer to act and file a compliance report [1].
• Protective directions under Article 21: police protection was ordered for a minor protester and her family against online vigilante threats, wherever she resides [1].

The inter-State dimension

• Police is a State subject, so no single executive authority binds Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Police simultaneously; the writ court supplies that missing link by issuing a single enforceable command [3].
• The offence was registered in Delhi while protection had to be delivered in Uttar Pradesh — the Court's order bridged this enforcement gap [1].
• Permitting a vulnerable minor to approach the Court or its committee directly protects victim privacy where local reporting may not [1].

Limits of the approach

• Case-by-case orders substitute for institutional remedies; Police Complaints Authorities mandated in Prakash Singh (2006) remain unevenly constituted across States [3][4].
• Judicial bandwidth is finite — relief reaches those who can reach Delhi.

Writ jurisdiction has thus become an effective, if second-best, instrument of cross-State police accountability. Durable protection lies in operationalising the Prakash Singh architecture and extending the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, whose Category 'C' already covers harassment and intimidation, to protest-related victims [5]. Judicial oversight should catalyse institutional reform, not permanently replace it.