3 min readJul 24, 2026 06:46 AM IST First published on: Jul 24, 2026 at 06:46 AM ISTThis is a time when mostly young protesters are still thronging Jantar Mantar in the national capital, and when, in the aftermath of the police crackdown on July 20, they are not assuaged by the government’s assurances. At this time, the message from the highest court of the land should be: Its doors are open to any process that protects the rights of the vulnerable, fosters accountability and expands the ground for negotiations. With due respect, however, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s response to a lawyer who sought the Court’s intervention against police excess, seemed to highlight a gulf between citizen and institution, instead of offering a healing touch: “Don’t waste our time and your time,” he said. And, “We are not interested in videos. We don’t have time to watch.” These may be only oral observations. It is also true that the CJI cannot be expected to wade through countless Instagram reels and in this polarised climate, even videos whose authenticity is in doubt. But in the social media age, words travel far, often away from their contexts. They can take on a life of their own — it was the CJI’s choice of words, earlier, that provided the spark for the satirical online platform, Cockroach Janta Party, the protests’ centrepiece.The question of police excesses against protesting students will need to be addressed. Reports from the Delhi street, including in this newspaper, have pointed to the use of disproportionate force, including pellet guns, apart from lathi charges and tear gas shells. They have highlighted, too, the short-circuiting, if not outright flouting, of established restraints and protocols. Delhi Police Standing Order 309 and Standing Order 152 lay down the specific guidelines that police must follow to disperse protesters — the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in the Ramlila Maidan case underlined these. An inquiry must ask if the police went through the required paces. Given the demographics and nature of the protesters, largely students, did the police observe the principle, as laid down by the Court, of “least invasiveness”? Did it use water cannons before resorting to more injurious methods? Did it fire the tear gas away from the crowd, rather than directly into it?AdvertisementA small section of the protesters, too, have resorted to violence and vandalism. Physically assaulting journalists not to their liking to pelting stones, these need to be strongly condemned. A fair and independent probe — the Delhi High Court has done well to agree to hear two PILs on the issue — must set those aberrations in the larger context. In a clash between unequals, it must ensure that the powerful state does not weaponise the rulebook to subdue the powerless citizen. That’s why, with due respect to the Court, this needs to be underlined: Due process is not a waste of time.