What Unfolded on the Streets of Kolkata?

Kolkata NEET Protest Violence: How Tilak’s Extremist Legacy Echoes in Today’s Law Enforcement

The night of 24 July 2026 saw a protest against the alleged leak of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) question paper turn violent in Kolkata, prompting police to fire tear‑gas shells and arrest 14 people. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari invoked the newly‑enacted Goonda Act on 26 July 2026, branding the agitators “Islamic fundamentalists” and hinting at foreign backing. The episode has revived debates over the use of coercive statutes to curb dissent, a theme that resonates with the rise of extremist politics in colonial India.

The protest began as a student‑led sit‑in outside the state secretariat, demanding a fresh NEET examination after a purported paper‑leak scandal. Within hours, a segment of the crowd clashed with police, resulting in baton charges, tear‑gas deployment and the assault of several journalists.

• ▸On 24 July 2026, police recorded 14 arrests and produced the accused before a city court on 26 July 2026.
• ▸Six of the seven FIRs lodged that day were filed by journalists who reported being assaulted.
• ▸The Chief Minister identified about 70 individuals as “Islamic fundamentalists” allegedly behind the violence.
• ▸The Goonda Act, allowing preventive detention of up to 12 months, was invoked for the first time in West Bengal.
• ▸The BJP announced counter‑rallies on 27 July 2026, while student bodies such as the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad planned further protests on 28 July 2026.

These facts illustrate a rapid escalation from a grievance over an exam paper to a law‑enforcement showdown that now carries communal overtones.

Legal Instruments Invoked: Goonda Act and Sedition

The Goonda Act, passed by the West Bengal legislature in early 2026, expands the state's powers to detain individuals deemed “dangerous to public order” without a prior conviction. Its provisions sit alongside the central Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises sedition—a law revived in 2019 to curb anti‑government speech.

• ▸The Goonda Act authorises preventive detention for up to 12 months on the basis of “reasonable suspicion”.
• ▸Section 124A was amended in 2019 to broaden the definition of “disaffection” against the state.
• ▸The Supreme Court, in the 2021 Kanhaiya Kumar v. Union of India judgment, warned that misuse of sedition provisions threatens free speech.
• ▸West Bengal’s police cited the Goonda Act to detain 14 protesters pending investigation.
• ▸The central government has not yet issued a uniform guideline for the Act’s implementation across states.

Historical Parallel: Tilak’s Extremist Turn

The contemporary rhetoric of “extremism” finds a precedent in the early 20th‑century nationalist leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak, whose advocacy for “Swaraj” (self‑rule) was framed as a moral imperative. Tilak’s 1905 editorial in Kesari declared that “the nation must be prepared to fight for its rights,” a stance that led the British to charge him under the then‑existing sedition law.

• ▸Tilak was arrested in 1897 for sedition after publishing inflammatory articles in Kesari and Maratha.
• ▸He championed the slogan “Swaraj is my birthright”, intertwining religious duty with political demand.
• ▸The British administration invoked Section 124A to prosecute him, marking one of the earliest high‑profile sedition cases in India.
• ▸Tilak’s approach split the Indian National Congress into “extremists” and “moderates,” a division that shaped the freedom movement’s strategy.
• ▸His use of Manusmṛti as a moral anchor gave his nationalist fervour a scriptural legitimacy that later leaders, notably Indian National Congress stalwarts, had to reinterpret.

Tilak’s legacy illustrates how the conflation of moral duty with political activism can legitise coercive state responses—a pattern echoed in today’s deployment of the Goonda Act against protestors.

Implications for Democratic Dissent

The deployment of preventive detention against a student protest raises pressing questions about the balance between public order and constitutional freedoms. While the state argues that the violence threatened law and order, critics point to the risk of criminalising legitimate dissent, especially when communal labels are attached to the accused.

• ▸Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which courts have interpreted to include freedom of expression.
• ▸The Supreme Court’s Maneka Gandhi Judgment (1978) expanded procedural safeguards, requiring that any deprivation of liberty be “fair, just and reasonable.”
• ▸International human‑rights bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Committee, have urged India to restrict the use of preventive detention to cases of genuine threat.
• ▸The BJP’s counter‑rallies signal a politicisation of law‑enforcement, potentially deepening societal fissures.
• ▸If the Goonda Act is repeatedly invoked for political protests, it may set a precedent for other states to follow suit, reshaping the legal landscape of dissent.

Way Forward: Institutional Checks and Historical Awareness

To prevent the erosion of democratic space, a multi‑pronged approach is essential. Legislative oversight committees should scrutinise each invocation of the Goonda Act, ensuring that detention is based on concrete evidence rather