Back
Invokes Article 142 to Quash FIRs Against CJP, Orders NEET Compensation
In a landmark order that underscores the constitutional power of the apex court to do "," the on Tuesday quashed all registered across India against students who participated in the -led protests over the NEET 2026 paper leak. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, also directed the to formulate a pan-India compensation policy within three months for families of students who died by suicide in connection with the examination irregularities. In a simultaneous development, the CJP called off its planned protest march scheduled for , citing the government’s assurances and the bestowed upon them.
The decision marks a decisive moment in the ongoing legal and political tussle surrounding student agitations, with the court exercising its under to bring to criminal proceedings that threatened the future of thousands of young protesters.
Background: The NEET Paper Leak and Nationwide Protests
The protests, spearheaded by the CJP—a student-led political outfit—erupted in June 2026 after allegations surfaced that the NEET-UG examination paper had been leaked. Demonstrations spread from Delhi’s Jantar Mantar to several cities, with demands ranging from the resignation of the then Union Education Minister to a complete overhaul of the examination system. The agitation intensified between and 25, culminating in clashes with police in Delhi and Bihar, where protesters attempted to march toward Parliament. Law enforcement agencies used lathis and teargas shells to disperse crowds, leading to multiple FIRs being lodged against participants.
On , the government accepted the CJP’s key demands, including the resignation of the Education Minister, and assured the protesters that no punitive action would be taken against them. However, when the promised withdrawal of FIRs did not materialize, the CJP announced a fresh protest march in Delhi on —Teachers’ Day—to pressure the government into fulfilling its commitments. The march was to be led by families of students who had died by suicide following the cancellation and re-test of NEET.
The Hearing: A Turning Point
The matter reached the through a batch of petitions, including an application filed by the seeking directions on the 13 FIRs registered in the national capital. On , a three-judge bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana took up the case. , appearing for the Centre and the , submitted that the government had consciously decided not to pursue the FIRs to protect the future of the students. He urged the court to quash the cases across all states and Union Territories where similar protests had occurred.
Mehta informed the bench that the Centre remained committed to its earlier assurances, including the payment of compensation to families of students who had died by suicide. He sought three months to work out the modalities for a nationwide policy. The court recorded these submissions and, invoking Article 142, ordered the
of FIRs registered in Delhi, Bihar, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Assam. It further directed that any other FIRs connected to the
–25 protests in other states or Union Territories
"shall not be pursued or investigated"
and would be treated as closed for all purposes.
The Order: Article 142 in Full Play
The bench explicitly stated that it was exercising its
under Article 142
"in order to
between the parties,"
keeping in view the future prospects of the young protesters. The court emphasized that the order was passed in the
"peculiar facts and circumstances of the case"
and shall not be treated as a
.
"We make it clear that the invocation of the
of this Court under
is subject to the condition that both sides shall abide by the understanding arrived at before this Court,"
the bench observed.
However, the court carved out a significant exception. Accepting the Centre’s submission, it permitted the
to register a single fresh FIR against 2,873 individuals with "serious criminal antecedents" as per the
database. The investigation into these persons would be strictly confined to allegations of bodily harm or destruction of property. The court clarified that this fresh FIR could be registered
"
to the rights of the affected parties to seek remedies available to them in law."
On the compensation front, the court directed the to formulate a policy for payment of compensation on a pan-India basis in consultation with state governments. The policy must be circulated to all implementing authorities within three months, and compensation shall be paid to the families of students who died by suicide in connection with NEET 2026 after the policy is finalized.
CJP Withdraws the March
During the hearing, Solicitor General Mehta informed the bench that the CJP leadership had called for the
march due to apprehension that the government would not honor its assurances. In response, CJP co-convener Saurav Das, who was present in court, read out a statement announcing the withdrawal of the march.
"As co-convener of the CJP, I want to state that in view of the positive assurances of the
and the
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
and looks forward to compliance with today's order,"
Das said.
CJI Surya Kant appreciated the stand, observing,
"If both sides show
, then all issues can be resolved one by one. There is nothing in the world which is too complicated that it cannot be discussed with an open mind."
Reactions and Legal Implications
The verdict drew immediate reactions from political quarters and legal circles. Union Health Minister J P Nadda welcomed the decision, reiterating that the welfare and progress of the country's youth remain the government's utmost priority. He confirmed that all FIRs lodged against participants would be withdrawn and no stringent action would be taken against them. leader Supriya Shrinate, while acknowledging the relief, questioned the use of pellet guns during the July protests and demanded accountability for injured students.
, who represented the CJP, described the order as "historic and significant," noting that it upheld the freedom to protest and the right to seek accountability in a democracy.
"The court said the youth are the future and these cases don't need to hinder their future growth,"
she stated.
From a legal standpoint, the ’s invocation of Article 142 to quash multiple FIRs across jurisdictions—without a full trial or inquiry—raises important questions about the scope of the provision. While the court explicitly limited the precedential value of the order, the decision demonstrates the apex court’s willingness to intervene in large-scale public protests where the executive and judiciary collaborate to achieve a resolution. The exception carved out for individuals with criminal antecedents also signals that the right to peaceful protest does not extend to those who engage in violence or property destruction.
Impact on Legal Practice and Future Protests
For legal practitioners, the order serves as a reminder of the flexibility inherent in Article 142, which allows the to pass any order necessary to secure . However, the court’s caveat that the order is not means that similar requests for mass of FIRs in future protests will not automatically succeed. Each case will be decided on its own facts.
The decision also sets a framework for government accountability: by directing a pan-India compensation policy, the court has ensured that the state cannot escape its moral and legal obligation to the families of students who lost their lives due to systemic failures. The three-month timeline for policy formulation imposes a binding obligation on the Centre.
The CJP’s decision to call off the march, coupled with the government’s compliance, suggests that a combination of judicial oversight and political will can de-escalate potentially volatile situations. Yet, the underlying issues of examination integrity and student welfare remain unresolved, and the court’s order may be seen as a temporary truce rather than a permanent solution.
Conclusion
The ’s order to quash FIRs against CJP protesters while ordering compensation for NEET-related suicides marks a significant moment in the intersection of constitutional law, protest rights, and executive accountability. By invoking Article 142, the bench has demonstrated the apex court’s ability to provide holistic relief in extraordinary circumstances. The withdrawal of the march signals a return to dialogue, but the long-term impact on India’s student protest movement and the criminal justice system will depend on how faithfully the government implements the court’s directions. For now, the future of thousands of young protesters remains secure—at least in the eyes of the law.
