Back
Four States Urge Supreme Court to Quash 116 FIRs Over NEET Protests Citing Centre's Commitment
In a coordinated legal move, the governments of Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra, and Assam have jointly approached the seeking the quashing of 116 first information reports (FIRs) registered in connection with the student protests that erupted in July following the leak of the NEET examination paper. The states anchor their plea on a commitment made by the Central Government to the on , under which the Centre agreed to withdraw the cases if the agitations were called off. The development comes just days before the CJP has announced a fresh protest in Delhi on , accusing the Centre of failing to honour its promise.
The applications, filed under , urge the Supreme Court to exercise its extraordinary powers to wipe out the criminal proceedings, effectively putting an end to the legal fallout of what began as widespread student demonstrations. The states have cited the Centre's earlier stand — that the cases would be withdrawn — and argue that continued prosecution would be contrary to that high-level assurance. The move follows a similar application by the Union Government itself, which sought quashing of FIRs against the protesters and, controversially, requested permission to register a single consolidated FIR against 2,873 individuals who, according to the Centre, have grave criminal antecedents.
, appearing before the Chief Justice of India on the morning of the filing, requested that the states' applications be taken up alongside the Centre's own plea later that day at 2 PM. The urgency underscores the political and legal sensitivity surrounding the cases, especially as the CJP gears up for another round of demonstrations.
The Numbers Behind the Plea
Each of the four states has submitted a detailed list of the FIRs it seeks to quash. Bihar leads with 69 cases, spread across multiple police stations in districts including Patna (Gandhi Maidan and Kotwali), Gopalganj Town, Siwan Town, Jehanabad, Katihar Town, Muzaffarpur Town, Bihar Sharif, Bhagwan Bazar, Dumra, Punora, Lalganj, and Bettiah. The FIRs were registered between and , capturing the peak of the student agitations.
Maharashtra comes second with 34 FIRs. These cases originate from police stations in Nagpur, Mumbai, Pune, Jalgaon, Buldhana, Amravati, and other locations. The state's chart includes multiple entries from Shivaji Park and Sitabuldi police stations, alongside FIRs from Ganesh Peth, Sadar, Azad Maidan, Chembur, Wadi, Buldhana, Deccan, Ambi, and Ramtek. In its application, Maharashtra states unequivocally that, following the decision of the Central Government, the state no longer wishes to pursue or investigate any of the listed FIRs.
West Bengal has sought relief for eight FIRs — one registered at Entally police station and seven at Hare Street police station in Kolkata. In a noteworthy undertaking, the West Bengal government has informed the Court that if any other FIR relating to the same incidents is subsequently brought to its notice, it will not oppose the affected party seeking similar relief from the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the state has given a that no fresh FIR will be filed for incidents covered by its application.
Assam has listed five FIRs for quashing. Like its counterparts, the Assam government states that it no longer wishes to pursue or investigate these cases following the Central Government's decision.
The Centre's Parallel Application
The states' applications run parallel to the Centre's own plea, filed a day earlier, which sought the quashing of FIRs against protesters. The Centre's application also sought a direction to register a single FIR against 2,873 persons described as having "grave criminal antecedents." This request has raised concerns among civil liberties groups, who argue that it could set a dangerous precedent by lumping together individuals with varying degrees of involvement, potentially including peaceful protesters alongside those with prior criminal records.
The Centre's commitment to the CJP on was widely reported: if the student protests were called off, the government would withdraw all cases related to the agitations. The CJP, a political party, had been at the forefront of organizing the demonstrations demanding a thorough investigation into the NEET paper leak and compensation for affected students. However, the CJP now contends that the Centre has not honoured its word, and has announced a fresh protest on to press its demand for case withdrawals.
Legal Implications and the Use of Article 142
The invocation of Article 142 is significant. The provision empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do in any cause or matter pending before it. While Article 142 has been used in a variety of contexts — from dissolving marriages to awarding compensation — its application to quash a large number of FIRs based on a political commitment is relatively novel. Typically, quashing of FIRs is sought under or before , on grounds such as lack of case, , or settlement between parties. Here, the states are not arguing that the FIRs are legally untenable; rather, they are relying on a governmental assurance to withdraw cases as a condition for ending protests.
This raises several legal questions. Can a political commitment by the executive bind the judiciary in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction? Is the promise to withdraw cases in exchange for a cessation of protests a valid ground for quashing FIRs, particularly when the protests stem from a legitimate grievance — a leaked examination paper affecting the futures of thousands of students? The Supreme Court will have to weigh the state's interest in maintaining public order against the principles of criminal justice, which normally require that offences be investigated and tried on their merits.
Furthermore, the states' reliance on Article 142 rather than the High Court's inherent powers suggests a strategic choice to approach the highest court directly, perhaps to obtain a uniform order that covers all FIRs across multiple states. This could create a precedent where the Supreme Court, in the interests of "," validates the executive's power to quash criminal cases as part of a negotiated settlement to public protests.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For legal practitioners, this case may become a touchstone for understanding the limits of Article 142 in the criminal law domain. If the Supreme Court accedes to the states' requests, it could encourage other governments to seek similar blanket quashing of FIRs — not on the basis of legal merit, but on the back of political promises made during times of unrest. This could lead to a blurring of the line between executive discretion and judicial oversight.
On the other hand, the case also highlights the judiciary's potential role in facilitating peace and de-escalation. By quashing the FIRs, the Court could remove a major impediment to dialogue between the student bodies and the government. However, the counterargument is that such a move might undermine the , especially if the FIRs involve allegations of violence, damage to property, or other that deserve scrutiny.
The undertaking given by West Bengal — that no fresh FIRs will be filed for the same incidents — may serve as a model for other states to follow, ensuring that the quashing is not merely a temporary reprieve. But the Centre's request to club all accused into a single FIR against 2,873 persons with criminal antecedents suggests a more punitive approach towards a select group, which could be problematic if it results in collective punishment without individual assessment.
Looking Ahead: The Protest
As the CJP prepares for its protest in Delhi, the Supreme Court's response to these applications will be closely watched. If the Court quashes the 116 FIRs, it may deprive the CJP of a key rallying point, potentially averting the protest. Conversely, if the Court denies the relief or delays its decision, the political temperature may rise again.
The Solicitor General's urgent request for a hearing at 2 PM on the same day indicates the Centre's desire for a swift resolution. Whether the Chief Justice of India will accommodate that request remains uncertain, given the crowded docket. But the matter clearly holds significance far beyond the 116 FIRs — it tests the boundaries of judicial power, executive promises, and the right to protest in India's constitutional democracy.
For legal professionals, this case serves as a reminder that criminal procedure is not always about rigid rules; sometimes, it is a canvas for political compromise and high-stakes negotiations. The outcome will likely influence how future governments handle large-scale protests and the legal machinery that follows.
Conclusion
The applications by Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra, and Assam represent a coordinated effort to use the Supreme Court's constitutional authority to wipe the slate clean on a series of criminal cases arising from the NEET protests. Rooted in the Central Government's commitment to the Cockroach Janata Party, the plea raises profound questions about the interplay between executive assurances and judicial independent scrutiny. As the protest looms, and with the Centre's own application for single-FIR registration against alleged habitual offenders pending, the Supreme Court faces a delicate balancing act. Its decision will not only determine the fate of the 116 FIRs but also set the tone for how future protest-related criminal cases are resolved — through legal merit or political convenience. The legal community will be watching closely, as this case could reshape the boundaries of Article 142 and the very meaning of "."
