When Millions Took to the Streets And the Government Responded With Tear Gas and Batons
By July 20, 2026, India had entered an unparalleled democratic crisis. It all started with a public outburst regarding a systemic examination fiasco and has since evolved into nationwide protests, police crackdowns, and even questioning the state’s treatment of its young population. When the morning sun emerged from the horizon, it seemed as if it had been waiting for an opportunity to accuse Jantar Mantar. In the first 15 minutes past 8 am, the scene in central Delhi’s protest site had already changed beyond recognition. The long line of protesters stretched for more than a kilometre, spilling over into the surrounding areas near the Metro station, with the number of demonstrators conservatively estimated in hundreds of thousands.
This time, it was not a political drama enacted solely by political actors and projected for public consumption. Instead, something genuinely remarkable happened because young people, families, students, and ordinary citizens felt compelled to speak out in unison. It was an unplanned rupture in the system caused by countless frustrations that had nothing to do with politics but had to do with life. This was not a direct confrontation between political parties, although their tussles created the conditions for such a mass protest to erupt. However, it was a moment when people realized that the system that was designed to serve them failed to respond to their needs and, most significantly, had failed them for too long.
The Trigger: A System in Collapse
The immediate trigger for the unrest was the third examination paper leak in two years. The NEET-UG 2026 question papers had appeared on coaching institutes, social media groups, and other sources weeks before the exam date. However, this was only the spark that inflamed the situation. The real issue was the intolerable pressure on young minds and the government’s irresponsible response to the crisis. Firstly, the Education minister, Dharmendra Pradhan refused to step down in the face of widespread condemnation. Secondly, the Union government moved the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill 2026, aimed at enhancing punishment for those involved in leaking questions rather than reforming the flawed examination system.
NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) exam was introduced to establish a common platform for medical students across the country. However, the exam’s 2016 introduction, which sought to determine a student’s future profession, led to unhealthy competition among students. NEET’s cutthroat nature saw cutthroat competition where only the top 1% would make it onto the merit list, giving 24 students an automatic slot for every 25 students. Consequently, the onus of career options fell solely on the student’s effort and performance in the exam. Coaching centers exploited this weakness by charging millions from students who would go on to pay taxes to the government. The burden of the exam, which dictated the career path of the youth, aged 15 to 17, with depression, insomnia, and suicide being the norm.
The government’s response to the crisis further adds insult to the injury.
The government seems to be oblivious to the fact that the NEET examination body was the architect of the crisis. The solution proposed by the government to punish students and teachers involved in malpractice reveals this ignorance. It highlights how the powers that be fail to understand the challenges facing young minds and the root causes of sleeping insanities and suicides in the examination centers. The government is willing to spend millions of taxpayer money on enhancement and expansion but not a fraction on addressing the issues affecting the examination body.
The Manifestation: A Peaceful Protest Meets Police Violence
What happened on the morning of July 20 was momentous in several ways. This rally was notable for being broadly representative of the public, many of whom seemed to be ordinary citizens not likely to think of themselves as activists. It was popular – people brought their children, and the aged showed up to express their solidarity with the youth. One student told the press: “I didn’t come here at the urging of any political party. I came because my friend was killed, because my classmate was killed. We were promised a competition, but there was no competition.” (See quotes below.) Speeches, songs, and slogan raising kept the rally going, with order being maintained mostly by the crowd itself, which was large enough to help. People helped move elderly or tired-looking strangers to the front, and gave them bottles of water. Several aid posts were set up, where volunteers tended to the wounded. Apart from wanting to join the protest, the reasons for people turning out seem to have been largely negative – most said they came because they were not satisfied with the government. But that appears to have been the only common factor, as the rally contained a fractious mix of student unions, political parties, religious groups, and trade unions.
The atmosphere was generally one of mutual support, with no signs of ultra-nationalist slogans or abuse of the police. Journalists who got close to the protesters said there were no signs of trouble – not even any damage to temples or police stations. However, the police formed a cordon around the rally, which marched towards parliament house, but was ordered to prevent the demonstrators from proceeding further. The rally was unofficial – there were no permits. So, the police in half-dress and ordinary clothes – and without any insignia – turned out to be even tougher. They used water cannons and tear gas, beating up people indiscriminately. One journalist, who saw this happen said: “They are beating people here, look at this. And when they beat, they do not know whether a person is a boy or a girl.”
The police appear to have been targeting everybody.
“The police are beating everyone. I am saying this because they beat men and women alike,” said one eyewitness. According to Junaid Malik, the CJP spokesperson, who filed a petition about this, the police had harassed his family to intimidate him. In the evening, Jantar Mantar was left looking like a battleground – the stage, barbed wire, and barricades were all littered with spent cartridges. Fourteen FIRs were filed, dozens of people were detained, and many children.
The Constitutional Collision and Questions of Democracy
Within days, writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. The petitions were a referendum on India as a constitutional democracy. Surya Kant listened to petitions about police excesses, unlawful detention of minors, violation of the rights of children guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, and restriction of the right to speech and assembly under Article 19. The Supreme Court’s main agenda this week has been the TMC-NSUI clash and its aftermath. Chief Justice Kant said it was illegal to detain minors who had committed no crime beyond expressing their views. “Whoever committed excesses committed atrocities on innocent people; the law will deal with them. For this, there must be a completely independent and unbiased inquiry,” he said.
The Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of all minors and asked the states not to resort to coercive measures against protesters. However, this victory for democracy was largely symbolic. The central question of whether the right to protest was absolute, even illegal if it exceeded the limits set by the state, was not directly answered. Thus, a confrontation began between the school of rights and the police, between those who believe that Indians were entitled to their rights, even if they were not regulated by legislation, and those who consider that the state has the right to protect itself.
The Aftermath: When Law Becomes a Tool of Suppression
The Supreme Court’s decision to investigate police violence did not serve to bring accountability as thousands of people were pressed for prosecution. The charges included examination malpractice, incitement to violence, unlawful assembly, and obstruction of public order. Protesters were being punished for their rights as citizens to assembly and demonstrate. This is the way in which the instruments of the state were employed to punish dissent by protecting the establishment from criticism. The suppression of dissent was done through the use of laws barring unauthorized assembly. The use of force was also justified as a means of restoring order. Even as the Supreme Court prosecuted complaints of excessive use of force, it operated within the confines of the law. The very fact that a state that continues to arrest those critical of it is using the law to silence critics is an illustration of how the law has been used to suppress dissent. Police lodged thousands of complaints countrywide, and over five thousand First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered in the state of Kerala. Almost 5,000 people in Kerala have been accused of unlawful assembly. This was done as an effort to punish everyone who criticized the government. Police continued to file FIRs against demonstrators and go to coaching centers and schools to identify targets for intimidation, revealing the scale of suppression and vindictiveness with which the government was responding to dissent.
The Deeper Crisis: Democracy’s Vulnerability Exposed
July 20, which should have been the most critical test of India’s democracy and its democratic institutions’ ability to deliver on its promise to its youth, laid bare the limitations of those institutions. Judged in this light, July 20, 2026 will go down as a day of popular mobilization, but also a day of popular crackdowns. The events of this day will continue to haunt millions of those who have been injured, imprisoned, or whose friends and loved ones have committed suicide in the wake of brutal police crackdowns. In this sense, it will be the day that Indian democracy turned a corner for the better or for the worse depending on whether popular unrest will lead to fundamental institutional change or become business as usual in the annals of Indian democracy.
July 20, 2026 showed that while India’s democracy has features of a functioning democracy, when it comes to protecting popular (including student) sovereignty and rights, its institutional capacities to deliver on its promises are severely limited. India’s democracy is fragile in its very core. India’s democratic institutions are only mildly effective in checking the government, and when they do manage to do so, it is often through coercion, as in the case of the police, who can both stop and facilitate excesses. The government in India can sometimes be weakened, but not overhauled, and the ruling party often succeeds in using anti-incumbent sentiment to renew itself in office. The judiciary can order investigations, but it cannot carry them out.
