Archive · 9 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of FIRs Against Young Protesters
The Supreme Court was asked to reconsider its decision to cancel many police cases against student protesters.
The cases were connected to protests held from July 20 to 25.
The Court had kept cases against people with criminal antecedents in place.
The protest on July 20 drew about 30,000 people.
They wanted changes to education and the resignation of the education minister.
The Chief Justice said the protesters were young and the Court did not want them caught up in legal cases.
The petitioner said courts should not interfere with police work.
The Court dismissed the plea.
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking investigation into FIRs against student protesters.
The plea challenged a September 1 order cancelling FIRs filed from July 20 to 25, except for protesters with criminal antecedents.
The July 20 protest drew around 30,000 people demanding education reforms and the education minister’s resignation.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Court used Article 142, citing concern for the young students’ futures.
The petitioner argued against judicial interference in police functions and said a message needed to be sent.
- Who
- The Supreme Court of India, a petitioner named L Ramanathan, and student protesters.
- What
- The Court dismissed a plea seeking investigation into FIRs it had cancelled against protesters.
- When
- The plea was dismissed on Friday; the challenged order was issued September 1, and the protest took place July 20.
- Where
- India; the protesters attempted to march towards Parliament.
- Why
- The Chief Justice said the Court cancelled the FIRs under Article 142 to avoid young students becoming entangled in legal cases.
Petitioner's position
Court's position
Cancellation of FIRs
Petitioner's position
L Ramanathan argued that police functions are independent and sovereign, and that the Court should not have interfered.
Court's position
The Court said it used Article 142 to cancel the FIRs, noting the protesters were young students and it did not want them entangled in legal cases.
Purpose of legal action
Petitioner's position
The lawyer argued that it was important to send a message and objected to people treating the court as private property.
Court's position
The bench referred to a recent order permitting the Himachal Pradesh government to withdraw prosecution in 63 cases involving MPs and MLAs over demonstrations and sit-ins.
- Petitioner
- L Ramanathan
- Decision
- The Supreme Court dismissed the plea.
- Earlier order
- The September 1 order cancelled FIRs filed against protesters from July 20 to 25, except those with criminal antecedents.
- Protest date
- July 20
- Protest turnout
- Around 30,000 people
- Protest demands
- Educational reforms and the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
- Constitutional provision
- Article 142