Supreme Court Quashes Jantar Mantar Protest FIRs Across India, Permits Fresh FIR Against 2,873
The Supreme Court has ordered the closure of FIRs registered across India in connection with student protests held between July 20 and 25, giving major relief to young protesters who had faced criminal cases following the demonstrations. The Bench invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, directed that the FIRs should not be pursued or investigated and would be treated as closed. Although applications for quashing had been filed by the Centre and the governments of Delhi, Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam, the Court extended the benefit of the order across all States and Union Territories.
The Court also imposed a broader restriction: no State or Union Territory can register a fresh FIR concerning the protest incidents that occurred between July 20 and 25. The direction effectively prevents the authorities from reopening the same incidents through new criminal cases.
The Supreme Court, however, carved out a significant exception. The Delhi Police has been permitted to register one fresh FIR against 2,873 individuals who were allegedly present at the Jantar Mantar protests and whom the authorities described as having serious criminal antecedents. The exception is intended to allow investigation of persons allegedly connected with serious criminal conduct rather than treating all protesters alike.
The issue had reached the Supreme Court after violent incidents were reported during the July 20 protest march. Delhi Police had originally registered 13 FIRs, including cases involving serious allegations. It subsequently told the Court that it did not wish to pursue those FIRs in their existing form but sought permission to consolidate action against the 2,873 individuals.
The Court’s intervention draws an important distinction between participating in a protest and committing a criminal offence during a protest. The bench emphasised that young people who participated bona fide in the demonstrations should not have their education, employment prospects or future permanently affected merely because they became accused in protest-related FIRs.
The judgment follows the Court’s August 18 hearing, when it had indicated that Article 142 could be used to provide a comprehensive solution to the FIR issue. At that stage, the Court had also made clear that persons accused of grave offences could not automatically receive the same protection as ordinary student protesters.
The Centre told the Court that the decision to withdraw the cases was linked to assurances previously given to protest leaders. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the government had committed that the FIRs relating to the July 20–25 protests would not be pursued and that no fresh cases would be filed over the same incidents.
The proceedings also involved the government’s response to students who died by suicide following the cancellation of NEET-UG 2026. The Supreme Court recorded the Centre’s undertaking to formulate a pan-India compensation policy within three months, with compensation to be provided to eligible families under the framework.
Following the Supreme Court’s order and the government’s assurances, the protest organisation’s co-convener Saurav Das announced before the Court that its proposed September 5 march in Delhi would be withdrawn. The development brought an immediate de-escalation to the confrontation between the protesters and the government.
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that its order was passed because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and should not be treated as a general precedent. The ruling therefore provides exceptional relief to the protesters covered by the July 20–25 incidents while preserving the State’s ability to prosecute those accused of serious criminal conduct.
The ruling ultimately creates a two-track approach: ordinary student protesters receive a clean slate, while alleged hardened offenders among the 2,873 identified persons remain subject to criminal investigation. In doing so, the Supreme Court has attempted to protect the right to protest and the future of young demonstrators without granting blanket immunity for serious criminal offences.
