The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the closure of first information reports (FIRs) registered across India in connection with the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)-led protests held in July. The court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide relief to protesters.

The order came as the CJP withdrew its proposed September 5 march in Delhi after the Centre assured the court that it would fulfil its commitments on withdrawing criminal cases and providing compensation to families of students who died by suicide.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the decision was aimed at ensuring that criminal cases did not adversely affect students and young people who had participated in the protests. The court also made it clear that simply taking part in a protest should not be considered a criminal offence.

All FIRs linked to July 20-25 protests to be closed

The Supreme Court directed that all FIRs connected to the protests held between July 20 and July 25 would not be pursued or investigated. The order applies to cases registered in states and Union territories, including those that had not formally been brought before the court.

The court said such FIRs would be treated as closed for all purposes. It also directed that similar cases pending in other states and Union territories should receive the same treatment.

“No further FIR shall be registered in relation to the same incident,” the court directed.

The order followed applications filed by the Centre through Delhi Police, as well as the governments of Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and West Bengal, seeking the quashing of the criminal cases.

Centre reiterates three assurances

The Centre told the court that it remained committed to three assurances given after a July 25 meeting with representatives of the protesting group.

These included withdrawing FIRs registered between July 20 and July 25, not registering fresh FIRs in connection with those incidents and providing compensation to the families of NEET aspirants and students who died by suicide.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the government would honour all three commitments. However, he requested permission to take action against people with “serious and grave criminal antecedents”.

The Supreme Court agreed to make a limited exception for 2,837 people identified by Delhi Police. According to the police, these individuals had such antecedents and were prima facie present at the protest site.

Delhi Police had sought permission to register a single FIR against these individuals to determine whether they had individual roles in incidents involving physical harm or destruction of public property.

The bench said the matter involving these 2,837 people could be examined separately. It also clarified that this exception would not reduce the broader relief granted to the protesters.

Court distinguishes protesters from alleged criminal elements

The Supreme Court noted the Centre's argument that some people with criminal backgrounds may have entered the protest. “There was a case of sieving out a section of protesters who had assembled with certain bona fide democratic demands and certain alleged elements with serious criminal antecedents,” the court remarked.

The bench was referring to the Centre's claim that there had been an “infiltration” of people who may have had ulterior motives. The court said it could allow the authorities to retain the right to prosecute such allegedly “pernicious elements”, provided they were given all rights available under the law.

“At the same time, this exercise is to provide a healing balm to the main body of protesters,” it added. The court said its broader objective was to ensure that students and other genuine protesters did not face criminal proceedings simply because they had participated in the agitation.

CJP withdraws September 5 Delhi march

The Supreme Court's intervention came after the CJP announced plans for a September 5 march from India Gate to Delhi Police headquarters.

The organisation had claimed that the Centre had failed to fulfil assurances that resulted in the withdrawal of its 36-day agitation on July 25. The withdrawal of criminal cases was among its major demands.

Solicitor General Mehta told the bench that the proposed march had been announced because protesters believed the government had not honoured its commitments.

“Now that we are here and have filed our applications, I would urge the CJP representatives to withdraw the September 5 march call,” the solicitor general said.

CJP co-convener Saurav Das, who was present in court, subsequently read out a statement withdrawing the planned march.

“In view of the positive assurances of the Government of India and the judicial sanctity bestowed upon them today, and in view of the order being passed by this Court, the CJP deems it appropriate to withdraw the call for the march on September 5,” Das said.

The organisation also thanked the Supreme Court and lawyers representing both sides for their efforts. It said it expected the Centre to comply with the court's order.

Supreme Court calls development a positive step

The bench described the developments as a “positive” move by both sides. It said the order was based on “broad parameters” where there was agreement between the parties.

The court said its aim was to prevent genuine protesters from facing unnecessary legal trouble.

“We are doing this to ensure there is no case of vexation for any person who has because of his conscience, participated in a protest which is alleged in the FIR to be a crime,” it said.

The bench also recalled its earlier position on protecting protesters who had joined the agitation to highlight what it considered genuine grievances.

“We have always said that let us protect these protesters. We have always said that they were not there for violence or anything but to raise voices about some genuine grievances they had,” the bench said.

Centre to frame compensation policy

The Centre also repeated its commitment to compensate families of students who died by suicide in connection with the 2026 NEET examination controversy.

Mehta told the Supreme Court that the government would require three months to work out the details of the compensation mechanism. He said the matter was complex because it involved several competitive examinations.

The court directed the Centre to prepare and notify a nationwide policy framework for compensation in such cases. The framework is to be prepared in consultation with the states.

Under the court's direction, families of victims who died by suicide over the 2026 NEET paper issue would receive compensation after the policy is formally notified. Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for a petitioner, told the court that the process of identifying eligible families had already begun.

Relief extended beyond states that approached court

The Supreme Court's order goes beyond the four states and Delhi that had formally approached it.

The bench said that if FIRs connected to the July 20-25 incidents had been registered in any other state or Union territory and had not been brought before the court, those cases too would not be pursued or investigated.

Such FIRs would be treated as closed.

The court further directed that similar proceedings pending in other states and Union territories should also not be pursued.

The Centre said its applications were intended to address criminal cases arising from the July agitation across the country. The Supreme Court's order has now extended the relief on a pan-India basis.

July 20 march witnessed clashes

The July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march resulted in clashes between protesters and security personnel after Delhi Police and the Rapid Action Force used lathi charges, tear gas and pellet guns to prevent protesters from moving towards Parliament.

Protesters alleged that excessive force was used against them. Authorities, however, accused protesters of attacking police personnel and damaging public property.

The Supreme Court had earlier appointed a five-member high-powered enquiry committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy to examine the competing allegations surrounding the July 20 incidents.

The committee is looking into allegations of excessive and unlawful use of force by the police. It is also examining claims of violence by protesters, injuries suffered by security personnel and damage to public property.

Its terms of reference include the use of pellet guns, electric batons, lathis and tear gas. The panel is also examining whether the police response was proportionate, along with blanket prohibitory orders and allegations of targeted violence and harassment of women protesters.

The committee is functioning under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court.

CJP agitation began over examination irregularities

The CJP-led agitation began in June over alleged irregularities and repeated paper leaks in national-level examinations.

The movement gained further attention after climate rights activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the protest and began a hunger strike in support of the demonstrators.

The agitation was eventually called off on July 25 following discussions with the Centre. Withdrawal of criminal cases and other assurances formed part of the understanding reached between the two sides.

The Supreme Court later clarified on August 3 that its earlier order did not prevent state governments from taking lawful steps to close or withdraw proceedings arising from FIRs against student protesters.

The court also clarified that the term “criminal antecedents” used in its earlier order referred to “grave and heinous offences”.

The latest Supreme Court order addresses one of the major remaining demands of the protesters by providing broad relief from FIRs connected with the July agitation.