Supreme Court Orders Immediate Protection for 14-Year-Old NEET Protest Activist

The Supreme Court of India has directed immediate police action and security protection for a 14-year-old student protester who has allegedly faced severe intimidation, harassment, and stone-pelting at her residence. The minor was targeted for her active participation in the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) demonstrations, which were organized to protest against the NEET-UG question paper leaks.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana issued these directives during a hearing on the broader student protests. The bench expressed deep concern over the safety of the minor, emphasizing that vigilantes cannot be allowed to roam free or browbeat victims to prevent them from pursuing legal remedies.

The matter was brought to the court's attention by Advocate T. Bhalla, who detailed the harassment faced by the 14-year-old girl and her family. According to the submission, a vigilante, speculated to be Swatantra Bhardwaj, bragged on social media about the physical harm caused to the girl's father during the CJP protests. Bhalla presented arguments that instead of prosecuting the individuals who accompanied the attacker, the local police registered an FIR against the child, which she argued directly violated the court's protective orders.

The counsel also submitted that the minor's residence was subjected to stone-pelting, offering to provide video evidence to support the claim. Bhalla urged the court to seek immediate responses from the State of Uttar Pradesh and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, warning that waiting for a High-Powered Committee inquiry would take too much time and leave the child vulnerable to further mischief. Additionally, the counsel highlighted a separate incident from July 20, where video footage allegedly showed four police officers accompanying the miscreants who attacked the protesters, demanding that the Delhi government identify these officers.

Taking a serious view of the allegations, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the intimidation of a minor cannot be taken lightly. "These are anti-social elements. They commit violence against a child, and they roam free. Now, they are again trying to browbeat and intimidate the child and her family, so that they do not proceed with any legal action. This is a very serious issue. Her cause is absolutely justified," the Chief Justice remarked.

The bench directed Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to ensure that the Delhi Police take immediate action on the complaint filed by the minor at the Parliament Street Police Station. Justice Joymalya Bagchi explicitly instructed that the investigation be conducted by the Parliament Street Police Station, while directing the Uttar Pradesh police to provide immediate protection to the victim and her family. The bench emphasized that no individual should be permitted to intimidate a victim or her family for pursuing criminal proceedings.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta offered a different perspective on the minor's situation, noting that he was aware of the issue through her social media activity. "I know who she is talking about. If you go on social media 5 times a day, you can't say you are a vulnerable victim!" Mehta argued, contesting the counsel's characterization of the girl as a vulnerable victim.

Chief Justice Surya Kant firmly rejected this line of reasoning, asserting the primacy of child protection over social media behavior. "Child is a child. Some measures to protect the child can be taken. This incident can be taken as a standalone [case] by local police," the Chief Justice stated. The bench maintained that the child's involvement in public advocacy did not diminish her right to safety and legal protection from physical threats and harassment.

The bench also addressed a closely related public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by the non-governmental organization Just Rights for Children Alliance (JRCA). The petition seeks comprehensive safeguards, including digital firewalls, to protect children under eighteen years of age from online exploitation, cyberbullying, and exposure to age-inappropriate content on social media platforms.

Senior Advocate H.S. Phoolka, representing the JRCA, argued that minors lack the legal capacity to enter into contracts under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Phoolka contended that this established legal protection must extend to the digital realm, where minors independently create and maintain social media accounts. The petitioner is seeking directives to the Central government to mandate parental consent, verified through e-KYC or other recognized mechanisms, for minors to access these platforms, advocating a "prevention by design" approach that protects children without excluding them from educational digital spaces.

In a separate development during the same hearing, Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh raised the case of Akshat Tripathi, a second-year law student. Tripathi had been issued a notice by an Executive Magistrate in Greater Noida, despite the Supreme Court's explicit orders protecting student protesters from administrative harassment. Dinesh requested the court to intervene to send a strong message to administrative officers.

The Solicitor General informed the bench that the concerned Executive Magistrate has already been suspended. This disclosure followed an order passed by the Supreme Court demanding an explanation from the magistrate regarding the issuance of the notice, which has since been withdrawn.

The Supreme Court has orally directed the states of Uttar Pradesh and Delhi to submit comprehensive status reports regarding the FIR registered at the Parliament Street Police Station. These reports must detail the specific security arrangements established for the 14-year-old protester and her family, alongside the concrete actions taken against the individuals involved in the alleged assault and intimidation. The case, registered under Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., remains pending before the court as it monitors compliance with these protective directives.