New Delhi: The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) convened an online panel discussion titled “From Solidarity to Persecution: Standing with Goa’s NEET Activists” on Tuesday, highlighting the alleged harassment and intimidation of student activists who had organised peaceful protests in Goa demanding accountability over the NEET examination controversy.
The discussion examined the series of police actions that followed those protests, including detentions, prolonged interrogations, and what participants described as an attempt to criminalise peaceful dissent. Several student organisers were summoned to police stations in Mapusa and Panjim in late July 2026, where they reportedly faced extensive questioning unrelated to the stated purpose of the summons.
Amreen, a NEET activist, recounted being subjected to lengthy interrogations despite obtaining all necessary permissions for the protest. She stated that on July 26 she was asked to provide handwritten responses to nearly 240 questions at Mapusa Police Station. During questioning at Panjim Police Station on July 29, she said police officials questioned her family’s financial background, asked whether her relatives had travelled abroad, accused her of supporting Umar Khalid, and even questioned whether she would ‘take accountability’ for a hypothetical bomb blast because she had organised the protest. She also alleged that her lawyer was not allowed to remain with her during the interrogation. She said, “We organised the protest for the fundamental right to education. I haven’t done anything unlawful, and I’m proud of what I’ve done.”
Sudeep Dalvi spoke about standing in solidarity with a fellow protester, Danish, who had travelled from Delhi to join the demonstration, arguing that activists like Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid are targeted for their identity as Muslims rather than any wrongdoing. He said, “The police asked me why I was standing with these people. I stand with them because they are my colleagues.”
Prof. Nandini Sundar criticised the Education Minister’s characterisation of the protestors, arguing that the education system has become arbitrary and punitive. She said, “No one with any real sense of democracy would question the legitimacy of the protest itself.”
Advocate Malisa described the police action as legally indefensible and warned against attempts to delegitimise public protest through defamatory narratives, stating, “What happened was preposterous. This was a protest that had already achieved accountability, yet it was converted into a campaign targeting individuals and communalised into a minority-versus-majority narrative.”
Anirban Bhattacharya argued that the state’s response reflected a fear of collective resistance and solidarity, saying, “Simply holding a placard can lead to this. The regime is afraid of the youth, and especially afraid of solidarity.”
Navsharan Singh called for a ban on the use of pellet guns in protest and conflict situations, and connected the Goa incidents to wider struggles for civil liberties across India. She said, “Solidarity helps protestors negotiate better. Democratic space expands when different struggles are connected.”
APCR reiterated its call for an immediate end to the intimidation of student activists in Goa and demanded accountability for the manner in which police interrogations were conducted. The organisation emphasised that peaceful assembly and dissent are constitutionally protected rights and urged authorities to refrain from criminalising democratic protest.
APCR affirmed its solidarity with the students, activists, and citizens who continue to raise their voices for the right to education and the protection of democratic freedoms.
New Delhi: The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) convened an online panel discussion titled “From Solidarity to Persecution: Standing with Goa’s NEET Activists” on Tuesday, highlighting the alleged harassment and intimidation of student activists who had organised peaceful protests in Goa demanding accountability over the NEET examination controversy.
The discussion examined the series of police actions that followed those protests, including detentions, prolonged interrogations, and what participants described as an attempt to criminalise peaceful dissent. Several student organisers were summoned to police stations in Mapusa and Panjim in late July 2026, where they reportedly faced extensive questioning unrelated to the stated purpose of the summons.
Amreen, a NEET activist, recounted being subjected to lengthy interrogations despite obtaining all necessary permissions for the protest. She stated that on July 26 she was asked to provide handwritten responses to nearly 240 questions at Mapusa Police Station. During questioning at Panjim Police Station on July 29, she said police officials questioned her family’s financial background, asked whether her relatives had travelled abroad, accused her of supporting Umar Khalid, and even questioned whether she would ‘take accountability’ for a hypothetical bomb blast because she had organised the protest. She also alleged that her lawyer was not allowed to remain with her during the interrogation. She said, “We organised the protest for the fundamental right to education. I haven’t done anything unlawful, and I’m proud of what I’ve done.”
Sudeep Dalvi spoke about standing in solidarity with a fellow protester, Danish, who had travelled from Delhi to join the demonstration, arguing that activists like Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid are targeted for their identity as Muslims rather than any wrongdoing. He said, “The police asked me why I was standing with these people. I stand with them because they are my colleagues.”
Prof. Nandini Sundar criticised the Education Minister’s characterisation of the protestors, arguing that the education system has become arbitrary and punitive. She said, “No one with any real sense of democracy would question the legitimacy of the protest itself.”
Advocate Malisa described the police action as legally indefensible and warned against attempts to delegitimise public protest through defamatory narratives, stating, “What happened was preposterous. This was a protest that had already achieved accountability, yet it was converted into a campaign targeting individuals and communalised into a minority-versus-majority narrative.”
Anirban Bhattacharya argued that the state’s response reflected a fear of collective resistance and solidarity, saying, “Simply holding a placard can lead to this. The regime is afraid of the youth, and especially afraid of solidarity.”
Navsharan Singh called for a ban on the use of pellet guns in protest and conflict situations, and connected the Goa incidents to wider struggles for civil liberties across India. She said, “Solidarity helps protestors negotiate better. Democratic space expands when different struggles are connected.”
APCR reiterated its call for an immediate end to the intimidation of student activists in Goa and demanded accountability for the manner in which police interrogations were conducted. The organisation emphasised that peaceful assembly and dissent are constitutionally protected rights and urged authorities to refrain from criminalising democratic protest.
APCR affirmed its solidarity with the students, activists, and citizens who continue to raise their voices for the right to education and the protection of democratic freedoms.
