Supreme Court Quashes Protest FIRs; CJP Withdraws September 5 March
The Supreme Court on Tuesday invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIRs registered in connection with pan-India protests held between July 20 and 25 over the NEET 2026 examination, after the Centre gave assurances before the court on demands raised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). Following the Centre's assurances and the court's directions, the CJP called off its proposed protest scheduled for September 5.
The court was hearing applications filed by Delhi Police and the states of Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and West Bengal seeking directions concerning FIRs registered in connection with the protests, in which thousands of students and youth participated. The court recorded that the Central Government and the applicant states had consciously decided not to proceed with the FIRs, so that students and youth who participated in the protests would not face consequences merely for taking part in the demonstrations.
The court observed that "mere participation in protests shall not be taken as an offence" and directed that the FIRs covered by its order would not be pursued. It further directed that any other FIR relating to protests held between July 20 and 25 that had not been formally brought before the court would also not be pursued and would be treated as quashed for all intended purposes.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, informed the court that similar FIRs could have been registered in other states and Union Territories. He subsequently assured the court that no further FIR would be registered in Delhi or elsewhere in the country in relation to the July 20-25 protests.
Delhi Police, however, sought an exception in the case of 2,873 individuals in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, citing their alleged criminal antecedents as reflected in the national database. The police submitted that allegations against these individuals included bodily harm and destruction of property. The Supreme Court permitted the Central Government and Delhi Police to register FIRs against these individuals in accordance with law.
Regarding compensation, the Centre assured the court that compensation to families of students who died by suicide would be paid within three months. The court said it took into consideration the statement made by the co-convenor of the CJP and the future of the students and youth involved.
CJP's Decision and Statement in Court
CJP spokesperson Saurav Das told the Supreme Court that the decision to call off the march came in view of the "positive assurances" by the Centre to withdraw cases against protesters and the subsequent orders issued by the court. Das read out the CJP's statement before the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
"As co-convener of the CJP, I want to state that in view of the positive assurances of the Government of India and the judicial sanctity bestowed upon them today, and in view of the order being passed by this Court, the CJP deems it appropriate to withdraw the call for the march on September 5 and looks forward to compliance with today's order," Das told the court.
The bench had earlier on Monday declined to urgently intervene against the proposed march, saying there was no compelling reason at that stage to presume that the demonstration would result in any untoward incident, and left the issue of maintaining law and order to the government and police.
Government's Submissions
During Tuesday's hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that he had moved five applications and provided the bench with the background to the discussions between the government and the protesters. He also took the bench through the Delhi Police's application and referred to the portion concerning the 2,873 individuals with criminal antecedents.
Mehta said a fresh FIR against the "miscreants" would actually be filed. He further told the Supreme Court that four other states—Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal and Assam—had also moved applications in connection with the matter.
On compensation, Mehta told the court that the Centre was committed to providing it, but the modalities would have to be discussed.