CJP condition, Govt request: SC quashes student protest FIRs

Why in the News

The Supreme Court has quashed every FIR registered across the country against students who took part in the Jantar Mantar protests over exam paper leaks, invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass any order needed for “complete justice” in a matter before it. The order came on applications by the Centre and several States and met a key demand of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), the student group that led the protests. The Centre had earlier negotiated an end to the July protests with assurances that the cases would be withdrawn, and the protesters remained apprehensive that the assurances would not be honoured. In response to the order, the CJP withdrew its call for a march in New Delhi on September 5. The tension is that a court has used its extraordinary power to give a political settlement binding force, on the condition that both sides keep their word, and has declared the order no precedent.

How far does the quashing reach?

1. Five applicants, one order: A three judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India allowed applications by the Delhi Police and the States of Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam and West Bengal.
2. States that never asked are covered too: The Bench was told that Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh had registered FIRs without approaching the court. It directed that any FIR on the protests of July 20 to 25, 2026 in any State or Union Territory not brought to its notice shall not be pursued or investigated and is to be treated as closed.
3. No fresh FIRs anywhere: No State or Union Territory may register a new FIR over those protest incidents.
4. The reason given is the protesters’ future: The Bench said it invoked Article 142 keeping in view the future of young protesters who came to protest in good faith.

Who stays outside the protection?

1. A fresh FIR against 2,873 named individuals: The Centre and the Delhi Police may register a new FIR in respect of 2,873 people with criminal records who were allegedly present at the protest sites.
2. The charges the police cited: The Delhi Police had told the court those individuals faced serious charges including murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rape and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. Rights are preserved on both sides: The fresh FIR is to be registered without prejudice to the rights of the parties to take lawful recourse.

What did each side commit to in exchange?

1. The Centre asked for the widest quashing: The Solicitor General recalled the discussions that ended the July protests and the assurances given to the protesters. He urged the court to quash FIRs even in States and Union Territories that had not approached it, since the protesters doubted the assurances would be honoured.
2. The Centre asked for time on compensation: The Solicitor General sought time to work out the modalities for compensating the families of students who took their lives after the paper leak, and said the government remained committed to its assurances.
3. The CJP withdrew its march: Its spokesperson told the Bench that the positive assurances of the Government and the judicial sanctity now given to them made the march unnecessary, and that the party looks forward to compliance with the order.
4. The order is conditional on both sides: The Bench recorded that both sides shall abide by the statements and commitments made before it, and made the Article 142 order subject to that understanding.
5. It is not a precedent: The directions were issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
6. The Chief Justice framed it as mutual gesture: The CJI said that if both sides show a good gesture every issue can be resolved one by one, and credited both sides for creating a constructive environment for youngsters.

What compensation framework did the Court direct?

1. A pan India model policy: The Central government is to formulate the modalities and a policy for compensation on a pan India basis. The model policy is to be circulated to all States and Union Territories in consultation with them and adopted as a regular mechanism of compensatory measures.
2. NEET 2026 families are paid first: For students who died by suicide in connection with NEET 2026, the Centre is to pay compensation to the affected families within three months of framing the policy.

Challenges to settling protest FIRs through Article 142

1. Article 142 bypasses the statutory quashing route: Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 vests the power to quash an FIR in the High Court of the State concerned, and a single Supreme Court order displaces that forum for every State at once. Eg. In Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India (1998) a Constitution Bench held that Article 142 cannot be used to supplant substantive law or ignore a statute’s express provisions.
   The Fix: Have non-applicant States file compromise petitions in their own High Courts with the settlement terms annexed, so each quashing rests on a statutory order.
2. Executive withdrawal was available and unused: The prosecution can withdraw a case with the court’s consent under Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that route keeps the accountability for dropping cases on the government that registered them. Eg. After the farm laws were repealed in December 2021, cases against protesting farmers were withdrawn by the Union and State governments through executive decisions, not a court order.
   The Fix: Record in the order that the Centre and the States remain responsible for withdrawing any residual proceedings, so the government’s assurance is enforceable against it rather than delegated to the court.
3. A pending charge is treated as a record: The carve out uses pendency of serious charges, not conviction, as the ground for a fresh FIR, so presence at a protest becomes an offence for one class of citizens. Eg. In Amanatullah Khan v Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) the Supreme Court directed the Delhi Police to revisit its rules on history sheets after finding that persons were being listed mechanically.
   The Fix: Register any fresh FIR only on individual evidence of an overt act at the site, not on a police list of those present.
4. Court directed compensation has no statutory anchor: A model policy the Centre drafts and States adopt by consultation binds no State that declines, so relief becomes uneven across the country. Eg. Victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inserted in 2009, produced uneven State schemes until the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v Union of India (2018) had the National Legal Services Authority frame a uniform scheme.
   The Fix: Add a victim relief chapter to the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 so compensation for leak affected candidates binds every State by statute.

Conclusion

The order closes the confrontation between the government and the protesters, not the paper leak problem that produced it. Its force rests on a promise from each side rather than on any finding of law. The marker to watch is the Centre’s model compensation policy and whether the States that never came to court treat their FIRs as closed.

Back2Basics: Article 142 of the Constitution

1. Text: Article 142(1) lets the Supreme Court pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, enforceable throughout India.
2. Supporting power: Article 142(2) lets the Court secure the attendance of any person, order the discovery of documents, and punish for contempt of itself.
3. Nature: The power is discretionary and curative, used to fill gaps where no statutory remedy fits the case before the Court.
4. Landmark uses: The Bhopal gas settlement of 1989 and the allotment of land to the Sunni Waqf Board in M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das (2019), the Ayodhya title case, both rested on Article 142.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2022] Consider the following statements : 1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed. 2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves. 3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. 4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?4 (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 3 only Answer: (b)”