1 day ago
CJP Withdraws September 5 March After FIR Assurances
The Cockroach Janta Party had planned a protest march in Delhi on September 5.
The march was about problems linked to the NEET exam and alleged paper leak.
The group told the Supreme Court that it would no longer hold the march.
It said this decision followed government promises and developments about police cases against protesters.
The government asked for cases filed from July 20 to July 25 to be closed.
It also said families of students who died by suicide would receive compensation.
The government asked for three months to decide how the payments would be made.
Reports differ on whether the Supreme Court had already quashed the cases or was being asked to close them.
The Cockroach Janta Party told the Supreme Court it had withdrawn its September 5 protest march.
CJP co-convenor Saurav Das cited government assurances and developments concerning FIRs against NEET protesters.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged closure of FIRs filed against protesters between July 20 and July 25 nationwide.
The Centre said it would compensate families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide and sought three months to establish the process.
The planned Delhi march followed the CJP’s allegation that the Centre had not fulfilled promises made during the July agitation.
- Who
- The Cockroach Janta Party, represented by co-convenor and spokesperson Saurav Das; the Supreme Court; and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre.
- What
- The CJP withdrew its planned September 5 protest march after government assurances and developments concerning FIRs against NEET protesters.
- Where
- The decision was communicated before the Supreme Court; the planned march was to run from India Gate to Delhi Police Headquarters in Delhi.
- When
- The decision was announced on Tuesday; the march had been scheduled for September 5, Teachers’ Day.
- Why
- The CJP cited the Centre’s assurances on compensation and developments concerning the closure of protest-related FIRs.
CJP’s position
Centre’s position
Fulfillment of July promises
CJP’s position
The CJP had accused the Centre of failing to honor promises made on July 25 after the group’s 36-day agitation over exam irregularities and the NEET paper leak.
Centre’s position
The Centre said it remained committed to honoring the assurances given to CJP leaders.
FIRs against protesters
CJP’s position
Withdrawal of the march was linked to developments concerning FIRs filed against students who participated in the NEET protests.
Centre’s position
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Supreme Court to close FIRs filed against NEET protesters between July 20 and July 25 nationwide. One report said the Court subsequently quashed them.
Compensation for families
CJP’s position
The planned march was to include families of students who died by suicide after the NEET exam’s cancellation and re-test.
Centre’s position
The Centre said it would compensate the bereaved families and sought three months to determine the payment process.
Key facts
- Organization
- Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)
- Planned protest date
- September 5, Teachers’ Day
- Planned route
- India Gate to Delhi Police Headquarters, Delhi
- FIR period discussed
- July 20 to July 25
- Government representative
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
- Compensation assurance
- The Centre said families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide would be compensated.
- Requested timeframe
- The Centre sought three months to work out the compensation modalities.
- Reported FIR development
- One report described a Supreme Court order quashing the FIRs, while other reports described the Centre urging the Court to close them.
Quotes
Saurav Das
CJP spokesperson and co-convener who addressed the Supreme Court
“As co-convener of the CJP, I want to state that 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 and looks forward to compliance with today’s order.”
thestatesman.com










