Letters to The Editor — August 20, 2026 - The HinduPublished - August 20, 2026 12:24 am ISTGuard against overreachStudents constitute the intellectual vanguard of a nation and have an inalienable right to articulate their grievances through peaceful and democratic means. The indiscriminate registration of criminal cases against genuine protesters can have deleterious repercussions on their academic pursuits, professional prospects, and psychological well-being.The Supreme Court of India’s intervention is a salutary reminder that the majesty of the law must coexist with freedom of expression and the democratic right to dissent (Front page, “Ready to drop FIRs against student protesters, says SC”, August 19). Justice must be administered with impartiality, restraint, and compassion so that the future of innocent students is not imperilled by unwarranted criminal proceedings.Nagarajamani M.V.,HyderabadThe Delhi Police’s affidavit before the Supreme Court, rather than putting the controversy to rest, raises even more serious questions about the conduct of the police during the student protests. At face value, its defence appears both false and deeply unresponsive to the questions being asked.The police says tear gas was used only as a “last resort”. But the central question is: was it really a last resort when the protest was largely peaceful? Likewise, the police describes the lathi charge as “limited” or “controlled”. Anyone who has seen the numerous videos emerging from the protests would find that description extremely difficult to reconcile with what was visible on the ground.Even more disturbing is the explanation regarding personnel in civil dress. The police says they were volunteers or plainclothes personnel deployed to maintain peace and keep the protest in check. Then why were these men repeatedly seen beating protesters? If they were there to maintain peace, why were they themselves using force against those protesting? And why were police officers allegedly deployed without visible nameplates? The affidavit appears remarkably silent on this basic question of accountability.There is another fundamental problem. The police claims that facial recognition helped identify “hardened criminals” and that 2,873 persons with criminal antecedents were identified. But if the same police force is unable or unwilling to adequately explain the conduct of its own personnel, how are citizens expected to simply trust its identification of protesters as criminals? What exactly was the criteria, and how was it applied?The issue is not merely about isolated video clips or competing narratives. There is a substantial body of visual material showing the alleged excesses, including the conduct of unidentified police personnel and those described as volunteers. The reported use of lathis and pellet guns, including the earlier report that pellet-gun use was recorded in a police register, makes the matter even more serious.Now the ball is in the Court’s court.The Court has already indicated that it will examine the “proportionality” of the use of facial recognition and has agreed to consider quashing FIRs against students in appropriate cases. But this cannot end with examining petitions and affidavits alone. The Court must examine what actually happened on the ground. If necessary, a larger Bench should undertake a comprehensive and independent examination of the entire episode — the use of tear gas, lathi charges, plainclothes personnel, absence of nameplates, alleged use of pellet guns, facial recognition, identification of protesters and the proportionality of the police response.The Court must approach this with an honest determination to establish facts, rather than allowing the matter to become a contest between competing affidavits and competing versions.Otherwise, the public is left with the uncomfortable impression that “yeh andha kanoon hai” — that institutions see what they are presented with rather than what actually happened. The law cannot be blind to evidence. And when the state itself is accused of excessive force, the state’s own version cannot be treated as the final version of the truth.Aditya Das,Bhowali, UttarakhandIssue with centralisationThe National Testing Agency (NTA)’s decision to hold re-examinations in three subjects confirms the agency’s continuing callousness. India has enough talent, but what it lacks is the will to strive for perfection. It has been proved beyond doubt that the NTA cannot improve, making it imperative to find a viable and meaningful alternative. The obsession with centralising everything, including entrance examinations, has proved meaningless and wasteful. The better course would be to leave education and health care to the States, providing funds wherever necessary. States such as Tamil Nadu and Keralam achieved great heights when these two sectors were under the States’ purview. Now, instead of other States catching up with them, poor quality is being universalised. A policy change is therefore imminent.A.G. Rajmohan,Anantapur, Andhra PradeshBlack money and pollsThe Supreme Court of India hit the nail on the head when it observed that black money in the electoral process compromises democracy, the rule of law and the electoral process itself (Inside pages, August 18). The Election Commission of India must ensure free and fair elections, for which political parties and citizens must cooperate. One feels that Generation Z, which took the nation by storm through its recent protests against the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) fiasco and succeeded, can take up this serious issue as well.S. Ramakrishnasayee,ChennaiFaulty roll revisionThe government and the Election Commission of India may have the backing of the Supreme Court to clean voter lists of duplicate, fake and non-existent voters. But who authorised them to declare a living voter ‘permanently shifted or dead’? My spouse submitted her Special Intensive Revision form online, as the Booth Level Officer never visited, and received an acknowledgement. Yet, in Telangana’s recently released draft electoral roll, her name is missing. On checking further, we found it listed under “Permanently Shifted/Dead”. How can a living voter be declared dead or permanently shifted without verification or even a visit to her residence?N. Nagarajan,SecunderabadPublished - August 20, 2026 12:24 am ISTSign in to unlock member-only benefits!Access 10 free stories every monthSave stories to read laterAccess to comment on every storySign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single clickGet notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products${ ind + 1 } ${ device }Last active - ${ la }