What Sparked the Current Protests?

NEET Paper Leak Protests: Echoes of Tilak’s Extremist Turn in 1905

On 22 July 2026, students gathered at Jantar Mantar after a third‑time leak of the NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) question paper. Police reports said an Assistant Commissioner of Police suffered a forehead injury when a stone struck him, and the Supreme Court of India declined an urgent listing of a plea challenging the police action. The episode has revived a debate on the state’s response to dissent and the historical roots of Indian protest politics.

The leak of the NEET paper—India’s gateway exam for medical aspirants—triggered a wave of demonstrations across Delhi and several states. Protesters, many clad in black, converged at the historic public space of Jantar Mantar, demanding accountability and a dialogue with the Union government.

• ▸The question paper was leaked three times within a fortnight, prompting the first student march on 20 July 2026.
• ▸An ACP from the Punjabi Bagh division was injured when a stone hit his forehead during the protest.
• ▸The Supreme Court of India refused an urgent hearing on a petition seeking a listing of the police‑action challenge.
• ▸Union Minister Kiren Rijiju announced in Parliament that the government was “willing to discuss” the NEET leak issue.
• ▸Kerala youth held a midnight candle‑light vigil in solidarity, underscoring the pan‑India resonance of the unrest.

The protests underscore the centrality of NEET as a socio‑economic ladder; a compromised paper threatens the aspirations of millions of students from diverse backgrounds.

Historical Parallel: Tilak’s Extremist Turn

The pattern of mass mobilisation against perceived injustice finds a precedent in the early‑20th‑century nationalist movement led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Disillusioned with the moderate approach of the Indian National Congress, Tilak championed a more confrontational stance, founding the Extremist Party in 1905. His slogan “Swaraj is my birthright” transformed political discourse from a petition‑driven exercise into a moral imperative demanding immediate self‑rule.

• ▸In 1905, Tilak launched the Extremist faction, advocating direct action and public rallies.
• ▸He published The Arctic of Indian Nationalism (1905) and The Eternal Law (1909), linking Hindu dharma with secular nationalism.
• ▸Tilak’s speeches frequently invoked the sedition provisions of the colonial penal code, inviting arrests as a badge of honour.
• ▸The colonial police responded with crackdowns, mirroring today’s police‑student confrontations at Jantar Mantar.

Tilak’s strategy of occupying public spaces to force dialogue mirrors the contemporary use of Jantar Mantar—a site that has hosted dissent since the 1930s. Both eras illustrate how the state’s delayed engagement can amplify protest intensity.

Legal and Constitutional Context

The modern legal framework governing protest rests on the 2019 amendment to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, commonly referred to as the Sedition Law. This amendment re‑criminalised sedition after a brief period of de‑criminalisation, allowing authorities to invoke it against demonstrators deemed to threaten public order.

• ▸The 2019 amendment restored the offence of sedition, prescribing up to three years imprisonment.
• ▸In the landmark case Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court held that only speech inciting violence or public disorder qualifies as sedition.
• ▸The Right to Information Act 2005 empowers citizens to request details about examination security, a tool that could have pre‑empted the NEET leaks.
• ▸The Supreme Court of India retains the power to list urgent petitions, but its refusal on 22 July 2026 signals a reluctance to intervene in police‑action matters.

These statutes shape the boundary between legitimate dissent and criminal conduct, a line that has shifted repeatedly since colonial times.

Implications for Democratic Dissent

The government’s delayed dialogue, as criticised by former BJP Tamil Nadu president Annamalai, reflects a pattern where authorities wait for protests to reach a “flashpoint” before engaging. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s remarks that opposition parties are “using students as political tools” add a layer of partisan framing to a fundamentally civic issue.

• ▸Over dozens of students remain detained in Delhi police stations following the 20 July march.
• ▸Minister Singh asserted that the government is “attentive to the grievances of the student community,” yet concrete steps remain limited.
• ▸The protest’s spread to states like Kerala indicates a national diffusion of discontent, challenging the Centre’s capacity to contain the unrest through conventional law‑enforcement alone.

A sustainable resolution will require institutional mechanisms that allow rapid, transparent dialogue—perhaps through