ON MONDAY, the Supreme Court clarified its previous order that State Governments are at liberty to close/withdraw the cases registered against student protesters in connection with protests that originated from widespread outrage over repeated examination paper leaks, particularly the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
Earlier, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana had said that the governments could continue with the investigations in those FIRs. This was seen as a hindrance to the assurance given to the leaders of the Cockroach Janata Party (‘CJP’) that the FIRs would be withdrawn.
Yesterday, the Bench also clarified that the term ‘criminal antecedents’ would mean those facing heinous crimes. This clarification came as the Court’s order was being misconstrued to include any offence to deny the benefit of no coercive action against students who took part in the protest and had FIRs registered against them.
Mehta added that he had held discussions with advocate Vrinda Grover and that they are working on how to proceed.
‘Is it permissible in law to withdraw FIRs?’
Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the government was serious about fulfilling its assurance. The only question was a semantic one: whether it is permissible in law to withdraw the FIRs or whether some other methodology is to be adopted?
Mehta added that he had held discussions with advocate Vrinda Grover and that they are working on how to proceed. He said that if the leaders could get in touch with the government again, the semantics could be worked out. Mehta also submitted that under the law, FIRs cannot be withdrawn and that the government is exploring other options.
Grover submitted, both on behalf of the CJP and some other students, that they are in communication with Mehta and the government and are trying to resolve the matter. Grover added that the withdrawal of cases in individual cases is a tedious option, and that the better option is the quashing of the FIRs. Senior advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for some of the petitioners, also agreed with this.
CJI Surya Kant suggested to Mehta that information regarding all FIRs from all states could be collected, and then segregated as to which are against students and which are against hardened criminals. Recourse to law could then be taken for the closure/withdrawal of FIRs against students.
‘Name and identify police caught on camera engaging in excesses’
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan requested that the Delhi Police be asked what action it took against the named and identified police personnel caught on camera indulging in excesses against students. He requested the Bench to issue directions to the Delhi Police Commissioner and the RAF head as to how they permitted the use of pellet guns, lathis with nails, and un-uniformed personnel. “All that has to be explained and responsibility fixed,” Sankaranarayanan had submitted.
CJI Surya Kant also opined that he was contemplating having a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) headed by a senior police officer, which would investigate the FIRs that are to continue, and a committee headed by a former judge. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan said that, having regard to the background of the case, the committee ought to be headed by a former Chief Justice of India. CJI Surya Kant said it is difficult to obtain consent from former CJIs and that they are working on it.
With regard to the use of pellet guns, the CJI said the Court would lay down a comprehensive protocol on when to use them, where to use them, and under what circumstances, and that experts would also be consulted before laying down any such protocol.
The Bench had also directed the police to ensure that all CCTV footage, drone camera recordings, PCR logs and other digital evidence are duly preserved, and ordered that no personal data of the protesters be published.
What had the Court observed in its previous order?
Last week, the Supreme Court observed that a prima facie case had been made out for an independent investigation into allegations of police excesses against students who had gathered to demand the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan as the Union Education Minister.
The Bench had issued notices to the Delhi government and the state governments of Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Bihar, Assam, Maharashtra and West Bengal, seeking their replies to a batch of petitions highlighting police excesses against students.
As an interim measure, the Bench had directed that no coercive action be taken against the protesters, except those with criminal antecedents. It further directed that all minors detained in connection with the protests be released, if necessary upon execution of a simple bond.
The Bench had also directed the police to ensure that all CCTV footage, drone camera recordings, PCR logs and other digital evidence are duly preserved, and ordered that no personal data of the protesters be published.
The Bench had noted that the nature of the incidents detailed in the petitions suggests that:
(i) Pellet guns were used that led to injuries to young students, including one boy allegedly losing his eyesight;
(ii) Rubber bullets were used that caused injuries to various persons, including a woman;
(iii) Electronic batons were used to disperse the crowd;
(iv) Lathis embedded with nails were also used, resulting in permanent and life-threatening injuries to some of the protestors;
(v) Even a member of the media was assaulted, leading to the individual sustaining serious injuries.
The aftermath of the student agitations
The protests originated from widespread outrage over repeated examination paper leaks, particularly the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. The protest was spearheaded by the CJP, which came into existence after Chief Justice Surya Kant compared unemployed youth to “cockroaches” and “parasites.” The Chief Justice later clarified that his remark was in the context of those lawyers who have fake degrees.
Students from all over India sat on dharna for weeks at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. On July 20, the CJP organised a “Sansad Chalo” march towards Parliament, the day on which incidents of police excesses against students were reported.
A day before the scheduled march, well-known social activist and educator Sonam Wangchuk, who had been on an indefinite hunger strike in solidarity since late June, was picked up by the Special Staff and the Delhi Police and admitted to Safdarjung Hospital.
The agitation ended after Pradhan resigned on July 25. Two Union Ministers subsequently assured the CJP that cases against protesting students would be withdrawn. States such as Bihar and Assam later announced steps to drop FIRs and release detainees.