INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India, on 1st September, 2026, made an important order relating to the criminal proceedings filed by police departments against protests made due to irregularities in the NEET-UG 2026 Examination. In Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 280 of 2026, a bench of three judges consisting of the Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana exercised the extraordinary powers vested in it by Article 142 of the Constitution to make “complete justice.” It dismissed the FIRs that had been brought before it and ordered that all other FIRs in relation to similar protests that occurred between 20th to 25th July 2026, even those in the states and UTs which did not come before the Court, shall not be proceeded with or investigated, but shall be declared closed. On the other hand, it allowed a new FIR in relation to 2,873 persons named by the Delhi Police while directing the Union Government to formulate a pan India compensation policy for the families of the students who committed suicide due to NEET-UG 2026.
BACKGROUND
This controversy emerged within the context of agitation by the students on account of the alleged malpractices in NEET-UG 2026. Protests were held from 20th July to 25th July 2026 in Delhi and various other places across the country. As per the news published on the website of SCC Times, FIRs were filed against 13 individuals by the Delhi Police, and several others were also filed in the states of Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, and Maharashtra. Later on, the Government dropped the cases of those who participated peacefully in the protests. This order came after previous developments regarding the same issue. On 28th July 2026, the Supreme Court protected the protesting students from coercive measures and allowed investigation to go ahead, excluding cases of persons with criminal antecedents. On 3rd August 2026, the court further elucidated that “criminal antecedents,” as stated in the previous order, included heinous and grave crimes and allowed the states to close or withdraw FIRs as per the laws.”
KEY POINTS
- FIRs quashed under Article 142
The Supreme Court examined the future of those youth who were involved in protests in good faith. The Court ruled that the conditions warranted invoking Article 142 for bringing closure to the criminal proceeding. All those FIRs which were specifically covered in the applications were struck down along with the proceedings initiated therefrom. More importantly, the Court provided the remedy on an all-India basis. FIRs related to the incidents of protest during 20 to 25 July filed in any State or Union Territory, except those that have been taken up before the Court, were instructed not to be pursued or investigated but rather treated as closed cases. No new FIRs are to be registered against those incidents in any State or Union Territory without the permission of the Court.
- Exception concerning 2,873 individuals
This order should not be treated as a blanket statement indicating that all those who participated in the protests are innocent. It has come to light from the application filed by the Delhi Police that the latter sought permission to file FIR against 2,873 persons who were apparently having criminal background as per the information available in the NCRB database and were present at the protest place. This investigation would have been limited to finding out whether or not any offence causing injury to the body or damaging public property has been committed by the protestors.
- Pan-India compensation policy
The Court noted the commitment of the Central Government in formulating, through consultations with the States and UTs, a common policy or arrangement for providing compensation to families of deceased students as a consequence of committing suicide in relation to the NEET-UG 2026 exam. The formulation of such a policy was expected to be completed within 90 days, after which payment was to be made forthwith.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In accordance with the Court’s directions and the assurances provided by the Government, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) decided to withdraw its proposed march planned for 5 September 2026. Further discussion for solving outstanding matters was recommended by the Court as well.
According to the Court, the applicability of Section 142 of the Indian Constitution in this particular case was due to “the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,” and could not be used as a binding precedent.
CONCLUSION
It strikes a balance between the right to peaceful demonstration and the State’s investigative powers into crimes committed. Article 142 was invoked in protecting peaceful demonstrations by students without making them immune from any investigations. The Court retained investigation of claims of injuries and damages caused by the accused persons who numbered 2,873. They have been instructed to set up a national-level compensation plan for the victims’ families. In light of the exceptional nature of the case, the order falls under the exceptional use of Article 142.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: KHWAISH SACHDEVA
