In the heart of India’s capital, a group of lawyers did something that rarely makes headlines: they stepped out of their courtrooms and into a courtyard to defend the very idea of dissent. On Saturday, more than 60 advocates from various district courts in Delhi assembled at the Tis Hazari court complex, not to argue a case, but to voice their anger. Their grievance was not a personal one. It was about the police action that unfolded exactly a week earlier, when thousands of young protesters attempted to march from Jantar Mantar to Parliament.

The gathering was organized by a group called ‘Youth for Justice’, a collective that describes itself as a voice for constitutional values. The lawyers sang the national anthem with a solemnity that filled the complex. Then they jointly recited the Preamble to the Constitution — the sacred words that promise every citizen justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. For them, this was not a symbolic ritual. It was a deliberate act meant to reiterate their faith in the rule of law and what they call the constitutional right to peaceful protest.

From the Preamble of the Indian Constitution “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…”

The protest was triggered by the events of July 20 when the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a student-led movement, called for a ‘Sansad Chalo’ march. The march had a clear demand: the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The reason was the NEET paper leak issue — a controversy that had shaken the faith of millions of medical aspirants across the country. The leaked question papers, the allegations of organized cheating, and the perceived government inaction had brought students to the streets.

On that Sunday, what began as a gathering at Jantar Mantar — Delhi’s designated protest site — turned into a tense confrontation. As demonstrators tried to move towards Parliament, they were met by layers of barricades and a heavy police presence. The situation escalated. Police used lathis and tear gas to disperse the crowd at multiple locations. Witnesses spoke of a sudden and forceful crackdown. Footage shared widely on social media showed protesters, many of them students, being chased, beaten and dragged away. The police, for their part, said they had to act to maintain law and order after the protesters violated agreed-upon boundaries.

The lawyers who rallied on Saturday saw it differently. They alleged that excessive force was used against peaceful demonstrators. Addressing the gathering, Advocate Ashu Bidhuri, founder of Youth for Justice, made it clear that the students were exercising a fundamental right.

“Protest is a constitutional right which police cannot curtail with brutal force. Freedom of speech and expression was also put in danger on July 20.”

— Advocate Ashu Bidhuri, Founder, Youth for Justice

His voice carried a mix of anger and urgency. He argued that the police should have engaged with the students through dialogue instead of resorting to what he termed a disproportionate response.

Bidhuri’s words were not just a general lament. He put forward a concrete demand: a judicial inquiry under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge. He insisted that the police personnel responsible for assaulting student protesters should face punishment.

“We are against the atrocities committed against the students, the lathicharge, the use of tear gas, pellet guns, etc. We demand a judicial inquiry, overseen by a retired Supreme Court judge. We demand that the guilty police officers be punished, terminated, and that the students be given justice.”

— Advocate Ashu Bidhuri, addressing the gathering at Tis Hazari

The crowd of black-coated lawyers applauded. They were not merely bystanders in the justice system; they were now participants in a call for accountability.

Key Demands from the Rally
  • A judicial inquiry under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge
  • Punishment and termination of police personnel responsible for assaulting student protesters
  • Justice for the students who were allegedly subjected to excessive force
  • Recognition and protection of the constitutional right to peaceful protest

The NEET Paper Leak: A Controversy That Refuses to Fade

To understand the weight of this moment, one must rewind a little. The NEET paper leak controversy has been simmering for months. The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test is the gateway to almost every medical college in India. When allegations surfaced that question papers were being sold before the exam, it sparked nationwide outrage. Students and parents took to the streets in various cities, demanding a thorough investigation and a re-examination. The government eventually announced a CBI probe and arrested several individuals, but the anger did not subside. The opposition called it a massive failure of the education system. The demand for the Education Minister’s resignation became a rallying cry.

The CJP, a relatively new but vocal group, positioned itself as the torchbearer of these protests. They adopted the name ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ as a satirical dig at what they see as a system that survives every crisis without reform. Their ‘Sansad Chalo’ march was meant to take that message directly to the doorstep of Parliament. The police, however, had imposed Section 144 in parts of central Delhi, prohibiting large gatherings. The protesters knew they were breaking the law by marching beyond Jantar Mantar. But they viewed their civil disobedience as a moral imperative.

The events of July 20 saw clashes that were chaotic and swift. Police used water cannons and tear gas shells. Protesters threw stones in some instances, though the lawyers’ rally focused squarely on police action against what they called unarmed students. In the aftermath, FIRs were registered at Connaught Place, Parliament Street and other police stations. Several protesters were detained and later released. The Delhi Police also flagged around 400 people with criminal records near the protest site using facial recognition technology — a measure they said was precautionary.

Tis Hazari: A Symbolic Stage for Constitutional Defence

The lawyers’ rally at Tis Hazari stood out because it came from within the legal fraternity. Tis Hazari is one of the oldest and largest district court complexes in India. When advocates there pause their busy schedules to protest, it sends a symbolic message: even those who work within the system believe the system’s safeguards are being tested. By reciting the Preamble, they were reminding everyone that the Constitution does not suspend itself when crowds gather. The right to assemble peacefully and the right to protest are not mere permissions granted by the state. They are constitutional guarantees.

Advocate Bidhuri’s call for a judicial inquiry is significant. It elevates the demand from a political one to a legal one. A retired Supreme Court judge would bring a measure of impartiality that a departmental inquiry may lack. The demand for punishment of guilty police officers, including termination, goes beyond the usual demands for an FIR or a review of procedures. It indicates a deep frustration with what the lawyers see as a pattern of impunity when force is used against protesters.

The Shrinking Space for Dissent in Public Spaces

The larger implication here revolves around the shrinking space for dissent in public spaces. Jantar Mantar has historically been the theatre of India’s democratic protests. From farmers to tribal rights activists, it has seen waves of agitation. The state’s response to protests has often been a subject of legal scrutiny. In previous rulings, the Supreme Court has affirmed that peaceful protest is a fundamental right, though it comes with the responsibility to not disrupt public order. The question July 20 raised — and which the lawyers are amplifying — is where the line lies between maintaining order and suppressing voice.

As the rally concluded at Tis Hazari, there was a palpable sense of resolve. The lawyers dispersed, but their demand now sits on the public record. They have asked for accountability, not only for the students who were allegedly beaten, but for the idea that in a democracy, the right to protest must be protected even when it is inconvenient to those in power. The coming weeks will reveal whether the government responds with a probe or dismisses the demand as another political pressure tactic.

For the students of the CJP, the solidarity from the legal community is a boost. It gives their movement a layer of legitimacy and legal nuance. For the police, it is a moment of reckoning. The Delhi Police has consistently maintained that its actions were lawful and calibrated to prevent a breach of security near Parliament. But the visual evidence and the chorus of voices from the legal field have made that official line harder to sell to a skeptical public.

Beyond the Courtroom: Lawyers as Custodians of the Constitution

The rally also serves as a reminder of the role lawyers can play beyond courtrooms. When they step out of their professional attire and recite the Preamble, they become custodians of the Constitution in the public square. It is a role that many feel is needed now more than ever. The NEET paper leak controversy may eventually be resolved by investigative agencies and courts, but the larger question of how the state handles dissent will linger.

What happens next could take several paths. The demand for a judicial inquiry might be taken up by the Delhi High Court if a public interest litigation is filed. The CJP has already announced plans to collect protest videos to identify police personnel and seek FIRs against them for the July 20 crackdown. The government, meanwhile, has sought more time from the protesters to consider the demand for the Education Minister’s resignation, indicating some back-channel conversations. But as the lawyers’ rally made clear, the core issue is no longer just about a minister’s job. It is about the right to raise one’s voice without fearing the swing of a lathi.

In the end, a Saturday morning at a court complex became a microcosm of a national debate. Over 60 lawyers gathered, sang, recited and demanded. They said that protest is a constitutional right. And they reminded the country that such rights are not self-executing. They must be defended — even by those who spend their lives defending others.