Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Supreme Court: While considering applications seeking invocation of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for quashing FIRs arising from the students’ protests against irregularities in the NEET-UG Examination, 2026, a three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJ., Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, JJ., held that it was a fit case to invoke its extraordinary powers in order to do complete justice between the parties. Keeping in view the future prospects of the young protesters who had bona fideparticipated in peaceful protests, the Court quashed the subject FIRs and directed that any other FIR relating to the same incidents between 20 July 2026 and 25 July 2026 shall not be pursued or investigated and shall be taken to have been closed.
The Court, however, permitted registration of a fresh FIR against the 2873 individuals identified by the Delhi Police, and directed formulation of a pan-India policy for compensation to families of students who committed suicide in connection with NEET-UG Examination, 2026 within 90 days.
Background
The applications were moved by the Delhi Police and the States of Bihar, West Bengal, Assam and Maharashtra, inter alia, seeking to invoke the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution and quash the FIRs registered between 20 July 2026 and 25 July 2026 during the students’ protest initiated in the backdrop of the irregularities in the NEET-UG Examination, 2026. The Court noted that protests were held between 20 July 2026 and 25 July 2026 in Delhi, in different areas of the applicant-States as well as other parts of the country, in which thousands of young students participated. As a sequel to these protests, 13 FIRs were filed by the Delhi Police in different police stations and several FIRs were also filed across the applicant-States.
The Central Government and the applicant-States had taken a conscious decision not to pursue the subject FIRs “as a gesture of goodwill and to ensure that the subject FIRs do not cause any prejudice to the young students who participated in the peaceful protests”, and also in acknowledgement of the fact that “mere participation in the protests is not taken as an offence under the penal laws”. It was further submitted that if any other FIR was found to have been registered with regard to the same incident(s), the Delhi Police or the applicant-States would not oppose the affected party seeking similar relief from the Court. The Solicitor General also submitted that no fresh FIR qua the incidents of protests between 20 July 2026 and 25 July 2026 would be registered in Delhi or in any other part of the country.
Analysis
The Court noted that the Delhi Police had carved out an exception with respect to 2873 individuals allegedly having serious criminal antecedents as per the National Crime Records Bureau database and who were prima facie reported to be present at the protest site. The Delhi Police sought leave of the Court to register a fresh FIR against these individuals, stating that an investigation was required to ascertain the commission of offences relating to
-
bodily harm, or
-
destruction of public property
The Court noted that the request was made in conformity with its order dated 3 August 2026, wherein it was clarified that no protection could be afforded to persons having criminal antecedents of “grave and heinous offences”.
Also Read: SC clarifies ‘criminal antecedents’ in NEET protest case | SCC Times
The Court also took note of the submission of the Solicitor General that there may be more FIRs in the States and Union Territories other than the applicant-States pertaining to the same incidents of protests and that “it may be advisable to put an end to those FIRs too”. With regard to compensation to the families of the victim students who committed suicide in connection with the NEET-UG Examination, 2026, the Solicitor General submitted that the students were situated in different parts of the country and, accordingly, there had to be a pan-India policy, acceptable to the respective State Governments, for payment of compensation. The Central Government undertook to formulate such policy/arrangement in consultation with the State Governments within 90 days and thereafter arrange to make the payment.
In light of the commitments made before the Court by all stakeholders, including the Union of India, some of the State Governments and the Co-convenor of the CJP, the Court held that it was “a fit case to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in order to do complete justice between the parties”. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court considered, “most importantly”, “the future prospects of the young protesters, who bonafidely came to participate in a peaceful protest to raise their voice in favour of certain demands”.
The Court, accordingly, proceeded to invoke its powers under Article 142 in respect of the subject FIRs, while taking note of the exception sought by the Delhi Police in respect of the 2873 individuals. The Court also took note of the commitment that no fresh FIR qua the incidents of protests between 20 July 2026 and 25 July 2026 would be registered in Delhi or in any other part of the country and that similar relief would not be opposed in respect of any other FIR registered with regard to the same incident(s). The Court further took note of the Central Government’s commitment to formulate, within 90 days, a pan-India policy/arrangement for payment of compensation to the families of students who committed suicide in connection with the NEET-UG Examination, 2026.
Decision
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the applications in terms of the following directions:
-
All FIRs described in Para 3 of the judgment were quashed along with any proceedings arising therefrom.
-
Any other FIR registered in any State/Union Territory, including non-applicant States/Union Territories, with respect to the same incidents of protests between 20 July 2026 and 25 July 2026, which had not been formally brought to the Court’s notice, “shall not be pursued or investigated” and shall be taken to have been “closed for all intents and purposes”.
-
No State/Union Territory shall register any fresh FIR in relation to the incidents of protests between 20 July 2026 and 25 July 2026, save and except as permitted by the Court.
-
The Central Government/Delhi Police shall be at liberty to register a fresh FIR with respect to the 2873 individuals described in the application, without prejudice to the rights of the affected parties to take lawful recourse in accordance with law.
-
The Central Government, in consultation with the State Governments/Union Territories, shall formulate a policy/make arrangement on a pan-India basis for payment of compensation to the families of the students who unfortunately committed suicide in connection with the NEET-UG Examination, 2026, within 90 days, and shall arrange to make the payment without any delay. Such policy or arrangement may also be adopted by all State Governments and Union Territories as a regular mechanism of compensatory measures.
The Court further directed both sides to honour the statements and commitments made before it, making it clear that invocation of the extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution was subject to the condition that both sides abide by the terms/understanding of mutual settlement. Since the directions were issued in the “peculiar facts and circumstances of the case”, the Court clarified that the same shall not be taken as a binding precedent.
Before parting, the Court placed on record its appreciation for the Union of India, the applicant-States, the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the leaders of the CJP for their “constructive and cooperative approach”, which ensured that the “best interests of the young students remain at the forefront” and that their future was duly protected and secured.
Also Read: NEET Paper Leak Protest Violence: SC forms 5 Member Probe Committee | SCC Times
[Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1754, decided on 1-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vrinda Grover, Devika Tulsiani, Soutik Banerjee, AOR Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Gaurav Kumar, Vishal Sinha, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Sanjiv Misra, Siddharth Venugopal, Naman Shresta, Pooja Shilpkar, Shourya Dasgupta, Smruthi Gangadharaiah, Priyendu Raghav Mishra, Mukesh Kumar, Himanshu Meena, Vishal Kumar, Praveen Kumar Mishra, Abhishek Jaiswal, Chand Qureshi, AOR, Mujahid Ahmad, Davinder Pal Kaur, Mohit Yadav, Amarish Chandra Tiwari, Daksh Kadian, AOR, N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv., Ashima Mandla, AOR, Mandakini Singh, Nipun Saxena, Arjan Singh Mandla, Siddarth S. Yadav, Apurv Kumar, Dev Nagar, Vanshika Tewari, Advocates
For the Respondent: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Bhuvan Kapoor, Annam Venkatesh, Sairica Raju, Aastha Singh, Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Dr Arun Kumar Yadav, Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Dr N. Visakamurthy, AOR Annam Venkatesh, Bhuvan Kapoor, Sairica Raju, Astha Singh, Azmat H. Amanullah, AOR Nishant Awana, G.S. Awana, Suraj Kundu, Amogh Pandey, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya A. Pande, AOR Sushmita Pandey,Shabnam, Firoz Khan, Manish Kumar, AOR, S.D. Sanjay Bihar, Advocate General, Manish Kumar, AOR, Divyansh Mishra, Kumar Saurav, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Sarthak Mehrotra, Surbhi Kapoor, AOR, Uday Gautam, Aradhya Srivastava, Nakul Patwardhan, Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Vaibhav Yadav, Harsh Mehla, Rajesh Pratap, Ankur, Koel Mukherjee, Sanchit Garga, AOR Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Diksha Arora, Oorja Goel, Vijender Kumar, Aljo K. Joseph, AOR Sashwat Mishra, Ajay M., Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Shrirang B. Varma, Aditya Krishna, Sushmita Pandey, Arunima Das, Ashwin Arun Hirulkar, Kunika Bansal, Sameer Abhyankar, AOR, Krishna Rastogi, Aryan Srivastava, Devina Sehgal, AOR Yatharth Kansal, Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Nishant Awana, AOR, Bhuvan Kapoor, Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Om Prakash Gupta, Yogesh Vats, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR, Aravindh S., AOR, Aadithya Aravindh, Applicant-in-person Vivek Sharma, AOR, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Rahul Gupta, AOR, Sadashiv, AOR, Gautam Barnwal, Sunil Kumar, Devendra Kumar Gupta, Vandana, Sakshi Singh, Mohd Arafat Ahmad, Mohd Shafat Ahamad, Mumtaz Javed Shaikh, Ashish Kumar Pandey, Manoj Pandey, Amit Rawal, Sr. Adv., Riahika, Kunal Mittal, Anindita Mitra, AOR, Astha Singh, AOR, Ashima Mandla, AOR, Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv., Yashwant Singh, AOR, Harshit Anand, Rishabh Gupta, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR, Kanishk Sharma, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR, Karun Sharma, R. Divyasana, Kartikeya Rastogi, DAG, Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
