The Supreme Court on Tuesday invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash several FIRs registered in connection with the recent protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) over academic issues, including alleged paper leaks.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after the Central Government and the governments of the concerned States sought the quashing of the criminal cases.

The Court directed that FIRs registered in Delhi, Bihar, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Assam in connection with the protests be quashed. It further ordered that similar FIRs registered in other States and Union Territories, except those five jurisdictions, shall not be pursued or investigated and shall be treated as closed.

The Bench also made it clear that no fresh FIRs shall be registered in relation to protests held between July 20 and 25, 2026.

Explaining its decision to invoke Article 142, the Court said it was taking into account the future prospects of young protesters who had participated in what was described as a peaceful agitation to raise their demands.

"Keeping in view the future prospects of the young protesters who came to participate in a peaceful protest to raise their voice in support of certain demands, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in order to do complete justice between the parties," the Court observed.

The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the CJP-led protests, including allegations of excessive use of force against protesters in Delhi and Bihar.

The Central Government had earlier sought the quashing of 13 FIRs registered by the Delhi Police between July 20 and 25.

However, it submitted that prosecution should continue against 2,873 individuals whom it described as having "serious criminal antecedents" based on the National Crime Records Bureau database.

The government proposed that the investigation against these individuals be restricted to allegations involving bodily harm and destruction of property.

The Supreme Court granted liberty to the Delhi Police to register a single, fresh FIR against such persons.

The Court clarified that any such FIR must remain strictly confined to allegations concerning bodily harm and destruction of property and would be without prejudice to the legal remedies available to the affected persons.

Another significant direction concerned compensation for the families of students who died by suicide in connection with academic issues, including NEET 2026.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Central Government had assured the CJP leadership that compensation would be provided to the affected families.

The government sought three months to work out the modalities for implementing the assurance.

The Supreme Court accordingly directed the Union Government to formulate a pan-India policy for compensation in consultation with the State Governments.

The policy is to be framed within three months and circulated to the concerned State Governments and implementing authorities. Compensation to families of students who died by suicide in connection with NEET 2026 is to be paid after the policy is formulated.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also informed the Bench that the CJP leadership had expressed apprehension that the government's assurances might not be implemented and had consequently announced a protest march in Delhi on September 5.

Following the Supreme Court's directions and the assurances placed on record, CJP co-convener Saurav Das informed the Bench that the organisation was withdrawing the proposed September 5 march.

"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," Das said.

CJI Surya Kant appreciated the decision and observed that issues could be resolved through dialogue and good faith.

"If both sides show good faith, then all issues can be resolved one by one. There is nothing in the world which is too complicated that it cannot be discussed with an open mind," the CJI remarked.

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the decision to quash the FIRs was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and would not operate as a binding precedent.

The Bench further stated that its exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 142 was subject to the condition that both sides would abide by the understanding reached before the Court.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan and advocate Vrinda Grover also made submissions during the hearing.