The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash FIRs against NEET-protest students across Delhi and four States, extending relief nationwide, with a narrow exception for 2,873 individuals.
New Delhi: In a significant exercise of its extraordinary constitutional powers, the Supreme Court on Tuesday invoked Article 142 to quash all the FIRs registered against students who participated in the July 2026 protests over the NEET examination-paper leak across Delhi, Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and West Bengal and directed that any similar FIR anywhere in the country arising from the same protests “shall not be pursued or investigated” and be treated as closed, holding it a “fit case” to ensure that young protesters who had participated in good faith are not saddled with criminal proceedings [applications in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order on applications moved by the Delhi Police and the four States, permitting the Delhi Police a single, narrowly-confined exception to register one fresh FIR limited to 2,873 individuals with alleged criminal antecedents while recording the Centre’s commitment that no other fresh FIRs would be registered and that families of students who died by suicide in connection with NEET 2026 would be compensated under a pan-India policy.
‘A fit case for exercising Article 142’
Pronouncing the operative order, the Chief Justice grounded the decision in the welfare of the students and the constitutional mandate to do complete justice:
“Keeping in view the future of young protesters who had bona fide participated in the demonstrations, the Court finds this to be a fit case for exercising its powers under Article 142.”
The Court accordingly quashed all the FIRs described in the applications filed by the Delhi Police and the States of Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and West Bengal. Crucially, it extended the relief nationwide, directing that any other FIR registered in any State or Union Territory in relation to the same protests between July 20 and 25 even those not formally placed before the Court “shall not be pursued or investigated and shall be taken as closed for all intents and purposes.” The Court recorded that thousands of students had participated in the protests, that 13 FIRs had been registered across different police stations in Delhi alone, and that the object of the order was to ensure that mere participation in a peaceful protest is not treated as an offence under penal law.
ALSO READ: Centre Moves To Wipe Out FIRs Against Student Protesters Using Article 142
The three assurances that framed the order
The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the authorities, opened by placing on record the understanding reached between the Central Government and the leaders of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), the student outfit that had led the agitation. He told the Court that at a meeting between two senior Union Ministers and the protest leaders, the Government had given three assurances: that the FIRs registered against protesters in relation to the July 20-25 incidents would not be pursued; that no fresh FIRs would be registered concerning the same incidents; and that compensation would be paid to the families of students who died by suicide. The Government, he said, remained committed to all three, which had also been reflected in a joint press conference.
Reflecting the first two assurances, the Solicitor General submitted that, pursuant to the Central Government’s July 25 decision, the Delhi Police no longer proposed to pursue the FIRs, and that the affidavit before the Court contained the complete list. He added that if any further FIR relating to the same incident later came to light, the State would not oppose the affected person seeking similar relief an assurance the Court built into its order.
Why Article 142, and the ‘shall not be pursued’ formula
The decisive legal feature of the order is the route the Court took to extinguish the FIRs. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order “necessary for doing complete justice,” a plenary power that allows it to override the ordinary procedural constraints of the criminal process. That power was essential here because, as the hearing brought out, the executive could not simply withdraw the cases: once an FIR is registered, it can normally be closed only through a police closure report placed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who may accept or reject it a route that could itself spawn protest petitions and further litigation. Article 142 sidesteps that machinery entirely, allowing the apex court to bring the proceedings to an end directly.
The Court and the Solicitor General were careful about the wording. When Advocate Vrinda Grover cautioned that formally “closing” the FIRs might still require closure reports before a Magistrate, the Solicitor General submitted that the order should make clear the FIRs would “cease to exist for all practical purposes,” and the Chief Justice clarified the effect as being that there would be “no further investigation.” The final order’s phrase that such FIRs “shall not be pursued or investigated and shall be taken as closed for all intents and purposes” is the product of that exchange, and is designed to leave no ambiguity that the cases are over rather than merely paused.
The narrow exception, and the compensation framework
The single carve-out concerns Delhi. The Delhi Police was permitted to register one fresh FIR limited to 2,873 individuals said to have serious criminal antecedents as per the NCRB database, who were prima facie reported to have been present at the protest sites — but strictly confined to investigating whether any of them were involved in offences of bodily harm or destruction of property, and subject to the Court’s earlier clarification on what counts as “criminal antecedents.” The Court expressly recorded that this fresh FIR would be “without prejudice to the legal rights and remedies of the persons affected,” and that mere participation in the protest was not an offence.
On the third assurance, the Court recorded that the Government would formulate a pan-India policy for the payment of compensation to the families of students who died by suicide in connection with NEET 2026, to be finalised within three months and to operate as a regular mechanism across examinations. Significantly, the Court made its exercise of Article 142 expressly conditional on both sides honouring the understanding reached before it, stating that both would be bound by their commitments a reciprocal framing that ties the students’ relief to the Government’s compliance and vice versa. The Chief Justice closed with an appeal that the remaining issues be resolved through discussion, and that the students now focus on their academics and careers, observing that in a competitive world “creating a place for oneself is not easy.”
For the Authorities: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, with S.V. Raju, ASG
For the Petitioners: Shadan Farasat and N. Hariharan, Sr. Advs., with Vrinda Grover, Adv.