Supreme Court uses Article 142 to quash FIRs against NEET-UG protesters
Can the Supreme Court close criminal cases across India in one order, and when should it?
Published 2 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
On 1 September 2026, a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIRs registered against students who protested between 20 and 25 July 2026 over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. Applications to close the cases had been moved by the Delhi Police and four States: Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam. The Court extended the relief to every State and Union Territory, directed that FIRs linked to these protests be treated as closed, and barred fresh FIRs over the same events. It said mere participation in the protests was not to be treated as an offence, and that it was acting with the future of young people who had protested in good faith in mind.
There is one exception. The Delhi Police may proceed against 2,873 persons it says have serious criminal antecedents, but only for allegations of bodily harm or destruction of property, not for joining the protest. After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought three months, the Court directed the Centre to frame a policy within that time to compensate the families of students who died by suicide in the wake of the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, which had led to the examination's cancellation. The Bench stated that its directions arose from the peculiar facts of the case and are not a binding precedent. The Cockroach Janta Party, which led the protests, withdrew a march planned in Delhi for 5 September.
Article 142(1) allows the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order "necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it", enforceable throughout India. Ordinarily, an FIR is quashed by a High Court case by case under its inherent power, now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC). Supporters of the order say a single direction spares young people years of litigation in many States, and that the prosecuting authorities themselves sought closure. Critics of wide Article 142 use argue that it lets the Court act without fixed standards; the Court has itself held, in the SCBA case (1998), that the power cannot supplant substantive law. The "no precedent" caveat reflects that tension.
Prelims facts
- On 1 September 2026, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant invoked Article 142 to quash FIRs against students who protested over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak between 20 and 25 July 2026.
- The relief covers every State and Union Territory and bars fresh FIRs over those protests; the Delhi Police may still proceed against 2,873 persons, only for bodily harm or destruction of property.
- The Centre must frame, within three months, a policy to compensate families of students who died by suicide after the paper leak.
- The Court said its directions arose from peculiar facts and are not a binding precedent.
- Article 142 power belongs only to the Supreme Court, and orders under it are enforceable throughout the territory of India.
Quick recall
- Which Article lets the Supreme Court pass orders for "complete justice"?
- Article 142 (clause 1).
- Can a High Court exercise Article 142 powers?
- No. The power belongs only to the Supreme Court.
- Which Bench quashed the NEET-UG protest FIRs on 1 September 2026?
- CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
- Which protest period did the 1 September 2026 order cover?
- 20 to 25 July 2026.
- What exception did the Court keep?
- The Delhi Police may proceed against 2,873 persons, only for bodily harm or destruction of property.
- How long does the Centre have to frame the compensation policy?
- Three months.
- Which BNSS section now holds the High Court's inherent power to quash an FIR?
- Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC).
- What did the SCBA case (1998) say about Article 142?
- It supplements the law and cannot be used to supplant substantive law.
Prelims practice question
With reference to Article 142 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. It empowers both the Supreme Court and the High Courts to pass orders for doing complete justice.
2. A decree or order passed under it is enforceable throughout the territory of India.
3. The Supreme Court has held that the power cannot be used to supplant substantive law.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is wrong: Article 142 is a power of the Supreme Court alone. Statement 2 is correct: clause (1) makes such decrees and orders enforceable throughout India. Statement 3 is correct: in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Court said the power supplements the law and cannot supplant substantive law.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Article 142, judicial activism and the limits of the Supreme Court's power
- How to use this
Use the NEET-UG protest order as a current instance of judicial activism through Article 142, weighed against the limits the Court itself has set.
- On 1 September 2026 a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant used Article 142 to quash FIRs against NEET-UG 2026 protesters in every State and UT and barred fresh FIRs over the same events.
- It allowed the Delhi Police to proceed against 2,873 persons only for bodily harm or property damage, and directed the Centre to frame a compensation policy within three months.
- Critics say 'complete justice' has no fixed standard; the SCBA case (1998) held Article 142 cannot supplant substantive law, and the Bench said its order is not a binding precedent.
The 2026 order shows the breadth this question tests: one Article 142 direction overrode the ordinary, case-by-case route to quashing FIRs in every State.
Mains practice question
The Supreme Court's power to do 'complete justice' under Article 142 is both a safety valve and a source of concern. Examine with reference to recent uses of the provision. (250 words)
Model answer
Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for "complete justice" in a pending matter, enforceable throughout India. On 1 September 2026 it was used to close FIRs against NEET-UG 2026 protesters nationwide.
A safety valve
- Filling gaps in law: divorce on irretrievable breakdown of marriage (Shilpa Sailesh, 2023), a ground the statute does not provide.
- Ending injustice from delay: release of A.G. Perarivalan (2022).
- Complex settlements: the Bhopal gas leak settlement upheld in Union Carbide (1991).
- Relief at scale: the 2026 order spared protesters in every State and UT separate proceedings, while letting the Delhi Police pursue 2,873 persons only for violence or damage.
A source of concern
- No fixed standard: "complete justice" is undefined, so outcomes depend on the Bench.
- Separation of powers: broad directions can resemble policy-making, the domain of the legislature and executive.
- Bypassing procedure: the case-by-case test under Section 528 of the BNSS and Bhajan Lal (1992) is skipped.
- Equality and precedent: the 2026 Bench said its order is not a binding precedent; this limits spillover but can look selective.
Way forward
- Follow the SCBA case (1998): use Article 142 to supplement, never supplant, substantive law.
- Record reasons and limits in every such order, as the 2026 Bench did.
- Refer novel uses to larger Benches, and let Parliament fill the gaps the Court identifies.
Article 142 serves the Constitution best as a rare, reasoned remedy that respects the law it supplements.
The basics
Why this matters
On 1 September 2026 the Supreme Court closed, in one order, criminal cases across India against students who protested over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. It used Article 142. Prelims asks what the Article says; Mains asks whether its use strengthens or strains the rule of law.
What Article 142 says
Article 142(1) lets the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, "pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it". Such an order is enforceable throughout India. High Courts have no equivalent power. See Article 142 and complete justice.
- 1Complete justiceClause (1): any decree or order necessary for complete justice in a pending matter
- 2Nationwide forceClause (1): the decree or order is enforceable throughout the territory of India
- 3Procedural powersClause (2): attendance of persons, production of documents, punishment of contempt, subject to Parliament's law
How an FIR is normally closed
An FIR (First Information Report) starts a police investigation. It ends in a charge sheet or a closure report, or a High Court quashes it under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC), testing each FIR on its own facts. See Quashing of FIRs.
- 1FIR registeredPolice record the complaint and begin investigating
- 2Ordinary routeThe accused asks the High Court to quash that one FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS
- 3Case-by-case testThe court checks whether the FIR, taken at face value, discloses an offence
- 4Article 142 routeOn 1 September 2026 the Supreme Court closed a whole class of protest FIRs, in every State and UT, in one order
Why the Court used it here
The protests ran from 20 to 25 July 2026. The Delhi Police and four States asked for the cases to be closed. The Bench said mere participation was not an offence, kept one exception, and said its order is not a binding precedent. Peaceful protest is protected by the Right to protest under Article 19.
The limits on the power
In the SCBA case (1998) the Court held that Article 142 supplements the law and cannot supplant substantive law. It has still been used boldly. The protests were about a paper leak, the harm the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 punishes.
- 1991Union Carbide case: Bhopal gas leak settlement upheld
- 1998SCBA case: the power supplements, and cannot supplant, substantive law
- 2022A.G. Perarivalan released
- 2023Shilpa Sailesh: divorce on irretrievable breakdown of marriage
- 2026FIRs against NEET-UG 2026 protesters closed across India
Go deeper
In one line: The Supreme Court used its Article 142 power to "do complete justice" to close, across India, the FIRs against students who protested over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
Why it matters for UPSC
Article 142 is a Prelims favourite (UPSC asked about it in 2019) and a Mains theme under judicial activism and separation of powers. This order also touches the right to protest, criminal procedure and the integrity of public examinations.
The core idea
Normally each FIR is quashed by a High Court on its own facts, a process explained in Quashing of FIRs. Here the Court used Article 142 and complete justice to close a whole class of cases in one stroke, while saying that taking part in a protest, which the Right to protest under Article 19 protects when peaceful, is not by itself a crime. The protests were about a paper leak, the harm that the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 was enacted to punish.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 20 to 25 July 2026: the protest period covered by the order
- 1 September 2026: order by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana
- Applicants: the Delhi Police and the States of Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam
- 2,873: persons the Delhi Police may still pursue, only for bodily harm or property damage
- Three months: time for the Centre to frame a compensation policy for families of students who died by suicide
Where to go next
- Article 142 and complete justice: the text, the uses and the limits of the Court's widest power
- Right to protest under Article 19: what the Constitution protects and where the State may draw lines
- Quashing of FIRs: how criminal cases are normally ended before trial
- Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024: India's central law against paper leaks
Go deeper: compassion, or a shortcut around the law?
The case for the order. The prosecuting authorities themselves, the Delhi Police and four States, asked for the cases to be closed, so the Court was not overriding an accuser. FIRs spread across many States would otherwise have run for years against young people. The Court also kept a narrow door open: the Delhi Police can still act against 2,873 persons, but only for bodily harm or destruction of property. Supporters say this separates protest from violence, which is the line the Constitution draws.
The case for caution. Article 142 and complete justice is not tied to ordinary procedure, which is why the Court in the SCBA case (1998) said it must supplement, not supplant, substantive law. Critics of wide use of Article 142 argue that it lets the Court make policy-like choices without fixed standards, and that relief for one set of protesters, but not others, can look selective. The Bench seemed aware of this: it said its directions arose from the peculiar facts of the case and are not a binding precedent. The ordinary, case-by-case route is described in Quashing of FIRs.
Protest and public order. The Court's line that participation is not an offence fits the Right to protest under Article 19. But Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, and in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020) the Court held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely. The exception for violence keeps that balance.
The deeper problem. The protests began with a paper leak. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 punishes leaks after they happen, and Parliament passed an amendment Bill in July 2026 to strengthen it. The compensation policy the Centre must frame within three months deals with harm after the event; preventing leaks depends on how examinations are designed and run.
Article 142 and complete justice
the text, the uses and the limits of the Court's widest power
In one line: Article 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any decree or order needed to do "complete justice" in a matter before it, and that order runs across India.
What it says
Clause (1) gives the power to pass decrees and orders necessary for complete justice in any cause or matter pending before the Court, enforceable throughout the territory of India. Clause (2), subject to any law made by Parliament, gives powers to secure the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of documents, and to investigate or punish any contempt of itself. Only the Supreme Court has this power.
Uses and limits
It has filled gaps where the law was silent or slow: the Bhopal settlement (Union Carbide, 1991), the release of A.G. Perarivalan (2022) and divorce on irretrievable breakdown of marriage (Shilpa Sailesh, 2023). In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) the Court said the power is supplementary and cannot be used to supplant substantive law. On 1 September 2026 it was used to close protest FIRs nationwide.
Where to go next
Right to protest under Article 19
what the Constitution protects and where the State may draw lines
In one line: The Constitution protects peaceful protest through free speech and peaceful assembly, but lets the State impose reasonable restrictions.
The rights involved
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Together they cover marches, sit-ins and demonstrations. These rights belong to citizens.
The limits
Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on assembly in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), on the Shaheen Bagh sit-in, the Supreme Court held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely. Police use prohibitory orders, now under Section 163 of the BNSS (earlier Section 144 of the CrPC).
Why it is in the news
On 1 September 2026 the Court said mere participation in the NEET-UG protests was not an offence, while leaving room to act against violence.
Where to go next
Quashing of FIRs
how criminal cases are normally ended before trial
In one line: Quashing ends a criminal case at the FIR stage when letting it continue would abuse the process of law.
How it works
An FIR is the first record of a cognisable offence, one the police can investigate without a magistrate's order. A High Court can quash it using its inherent power, now in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
The Bhajan Lal test
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) the Supreme Court listed categories where quashing is proper, for example where the allegations, even taken at face value, disclose no offence, or where the case is plainly malicious. Courts apply these one case at a time.
Why it is in the news
The 1 September 2026 order skipped this case-by-case route and closed a class of FIRs across States using Article 142 and complete justice.
Where to go next
Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024
India's central law against paper leaks
In one line: This Act is India's central law to punish paper leaks and other unfair means in public examinations held by central bodies.
What it covers
It applies to examinations held by the Union Public Service Commission, the Staff Selection Commission, the Railway Recruitment Boards, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, the National Testing Agency, and central ministries and departments. Offences include leaking question papers or answer keys, tampering with computer systems and running fake examinations. All offences are cognisable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
Penalties and changes
As enacted, it prescribed 3 to 5 years' imprisonment and a fine up to ₹10 lakh, and 5 to 10 years with a fine of at least ₹1 crore for organised crime. It came into force on 21 June 2024. Parliament passed an amendment Bill in July 2026 to strengthen it.
Why it is in the news
The NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, which led to the examination's cancellation and to the July protests, is the kind of harm the Act targets.
Where to go next
Take the 2 September 2026 quiz: 36 Prelims-style questions with answers