This is a procedural and interim record of proceedings. It records the High Powered Enquiry Committee's progress, directs parties to forward material to it, accepts one member's resignation, and fixes the next hearing. It returns no finding on the merits of any petition in the batch, on any detention, arrest or police action, or on the legality of any Section 163 BNSS order.
- Case
- Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- The Chief Justice of India; Joymalya Bagchi
- Case numbers
- W.P.(Crl.) No. 280/2026; W.P.(Crl.) No. 279/2026; W.P.(Crl.) No. 286/2026; W.P.(Crl.) No. 282/2026; W.P.(Crl.) No. 283/2026; W.P.(C) No. 917/2026; W.P.(C) No. 958/2026; W.P.(C) No. 959/2026; W.P.(C) No. 973/2026; W.P.(Crl.) No. 324/2026; W.P.(C) No. 969/2026; W.P.(C) No. 1042/2026; W.P.(Crl.) No. 321/2026; W.P.(C) No. 1066/2026; W.P.(C) No. 930/2026; Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 6/2026
- Outcome
- Record of proceedings dated 05-11-2026 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 280/2026 (Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors.) and tagged matters (Item Nos. 41 + 48, Court No. 1, PIL-W): High Powered Enquiry Committee action-taken report perused, directions to forward material to the Committee, resignation of a Committee member accepted, the Union of India and the Delhi Police may file their respective counter affidavits within three weeks, batch listed on 02-12-2026. No finding on the merits of any petition.
Court peruses enquiry panel report, directs parties to forward all material, lists batch on 2 December
On 5 November 2026, a Bench of the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took up the Delhi-protests writ batch in Court No. 1 and passed a record of proceedings in W.P.(Crl.) No. 280 of 2026, Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and others, together with fifteen tagged matters. The Court opened and perused the Action Taken Report dated 31 October 2026 filed by the High Powered Enquiry Committee, directed the parties to forward the entire material in their possession to the Committee, accepted the resignation of one of its members, and said the Union of India and the Delhi Police may file their respective counter affidavits within three weeks. The batch will be listed next on 2 December 2026.
The order is procedural. It returns no finding on the merits of any petition in the batch. Its operative content is the Committee's progress report, the directions for funnelling material to the Committee, and the timetable for the next hearing.
The batch, the bench and the parties on record
The record of proceedings runs to 12 pages. It lists the lead petition, W.P.(Crl.) No. 280 of 2026, with fourteen other writ petitions and Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 6 of 2026, heard as Item Nos. 41 and 48 of the day's PIL-W cause list. Dr. Monika Gusain, Senior Advocate, and Mr. C. Solomon, Advocate-on-Record, appear as amicus curiae in the connected W.P.(Crl.) No. 279 of 2026, and Ms. Ashima Mandla, Mr. Daksh Kadian and Ms. Astha Singh act as nodal officers. The Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, appeared for the respondents.
The batch is the Delhi-protests writ batch, in which the Court issued a consolidated order on 15 October 2026 directing all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and digital evidence and directing the Union to place on record the Section 163 BNSS orders for New Delhi other than the order dated 23 August 2026. That order listed the batch for further hearing on 3 November 2026; the matters were called on again on 5 November 2026.
The enquiry panel's portal: launched in October, almost no complaints received
The Committee decided at its first meeting, held on 1 September 2026, to create an online portal for receiving complaints. The portal was developed by the National Informatics Centre with the support of the Ministry of Home Affairs and was launched at hpec.nic.in on 13 October 2026.
Complaints filed confidentially on the portal are accessible only to the Chairperson and the Members of the Committee. Complaints can also be filed anonymously, without disclosing the complainant's name, phone number, address or Aadhaar details. The portal provides separate windows and templates for affected protestors and for affected police personnel.
A bilingual public notice was published on 14 October 2026 in 149 newspaper editions across India, providing for submissions through the portal, by post, by e-mail, or physically at the Committee's office at Shiksha Sadan, 17, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, between 2 pm and 4 pm on working days. The report records that there was "hardly any response": a press release was issued on 17 October 2026 through print and electronic media, and a scroll was added to the portal from 21 October 2026 reiterating the alternative modes of submission. Despite these efforts, only a few complaints have been received on the portal, and none by e-mail, post or physical delivery. The report also records that the Committee has not yet returned any findings on the issues referred to it.
What the Court directed: material to the panel, counters in three weeks
In light of the report, the Court impressed upon counsel for the parties that there is no requirement of disclosing the name or identity of any complainant or victim. The parties are to forward the entire material in their possession to the Committee, whether through the portal, by e-mail, or physically, as they may deem appropriate. Such material may include copies of the writ petitions and affidavits filed before the Court, and the video clips or other material appended to them. The material is to be received and dealt with by the Committee subject to the confidentiality safeguards directed by the Court in its order dated 10 September 2026. The Court clarified that material and information forwarded by the parties on behalf of the victims shall also be examined and considered by the Committee.
By a separate memo dated 31 October 2026, the Member Secretary of the Committee placed on record the resignation of Dr. L. R. Bishnoi, former Director General of Police, Meghalaya, who was appointed as a member of the Committee by the Court's order dated 18 August 2026. For the reasons stated in his letter dated 27 October 2026, the resignation was accepted and Dr. Bishnoi stands relieved from the membership of the Committee. The Union of India and the Delhi Police may file their respective counter affidavits within three weeks; wherever the issues are common, a single comprehensive counter affidavit may be filed, circulated through the nodal officers. The batch is listed on 2 December 2026.
BANTHRY ANALYSISAnalysis: the intake problem, and the Court's workaround
The order's centre of gravity is the intake problem. The Committee has a functioning portal, a public notice in 149 newspaper editions, and a press release, yet almost no complaints have reached it through any channel. The Court's response is to route the material through the parties themselves: the parties who already hold the writ petitions, affidavits and video clips are to place that material before the Committee, with the confidentiality safeguards of the 10 September 2026 order still in place and with anonymous filing still available for individual complainants.
Two things will show whether that route works. First, whether the material forwarded by the parties gives the Committee a record it can examine: the Court expressly directed that material sent on behalf of victims be examined and considered. Second, whether the counter affidavits that may be filed within three weeks, and the Committee's own progress, give the Court something to act on when the batch returns on 2 December 2026.
What the order does not decide
The order contains no finding on the merits of any petition in the batch. It does not decide the legality of any Section 163 BNSS order, the lawfulness of any detention, arrest or police action pleaded in the tagged petitions, or the validity of any order passed by the authorities. It records the Committee's progress, directs the parties to forward material to it, accepts a member's resignation, permits counter affidavits to be filed within three weeks, and lists the batch for 2 December 2026. Until the Committee returns findings, or the Court passes further orders, the substantive questions in the batch remain undecided.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: how the Court runs a fact-finding exercise mid-case
For law students, this order is a study in how the Court manages a fact-finding exercise while the main petitions are pending. Note three features: Dr. L. R. Bishnoi was appointed a member of the Committee by the Court's order dated 18 August 2026; its intake depends on complaints and material routed through a portal and now through the parties; and the Court has repeatedly protected the identity of complainants, including by allowing anonymous complaints. The next hearing on 2 December 2026 will test whether that design produces a record the Court can use.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What did the Court direct the parties to do with the material in their possession, and what confidentiality safeguards apply to it?
- Why did the Court have to address the low response to the Committee's portal, and what alternative modes of submission did the public notice provide?
- What does the 5 November 2026 order not decide, and what is listed to happen on 2 December 2026?
