The Supreme Court on Friday (October 9, 2026) refused to review its September 1 direction to quash FIRs against students and youth who participated in the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak protests and were subject to a brutal police crackdown on July 20 in the national capital.

The FIRs were quashed by the court using its extraordinary powers to administer complete justice under the Constitution.

“You have to appreciate… We do not use Article 142 in every situation. We did it concerned for their parents. These students have a long life. They have future prospects, we don’t want them entangled in court proceedings,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant addressed advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who appeared for the petitioner.

Mumbai resident and senior citizen L. Ramanathan, in a petition filed through advocate Linto K.B., questioned the judicial overpowering of the basic police function to investigate a crime.

“The police, while discharging its statutory functions of investigation, must be permitted to investigate offences freely, fairly and without extraneous interference which include interim judicial directions passed at an interlocutory stage. These interim directions have the effect of controlling, restraining, or micro-managing an ongoing investigation before its final outcome is tested on merits,” Mr. Nedumpara submitted.

Chief Justice Kant said there was a fine distinguishing line drawn in the September 1 order. Only criminal cases registered against innocent protestors and students have been quashed. The police were given liberty to continue with its investigation against hardened criminals.

Mr. Nedumpara urged the court to consider the “lurking danger” of the misuse of Article 32 jurisdiction to subserve “ulterior” ends.

“These petitions are filed asking the court to substitute the Executive and the Parliament… These petitioners think the court is their private property… The petitions [in the NEET-UG case]

Was filed without giving the government breathing time to resolve the issue. Manifestly with political agenda, and if not, with other extraneous considerations, the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 came to be invoked,” Mr. Nedumpara submitted.

The court however refused to entertain the petition, saying it was an indirect attempt to recall or review the September 1 order.

The Supreme Court had, on the urging of the Union government, taken the rare and extraordinary step to quash criminal cases registered against Gen Z protestors involved in nation-wide protests linked to the Cockroach Janta Party following the NEET-UG 2026 question paper leaks.

The court had clarified the order was not confined to Delhi, but extended to States and Union Territories which saw the protests. The court said the Centre would be at liberty to ensure that States or Union Territories did not register any fresh FIRs with respect to CJP protests held between July 20 and July 25.

The court had however allowed the Delhi Police to file a “fresh and specific” FIR against 2,873 individuals with criminal antecedents, who were spotted by facial recognition technology at the Central Delhi protest site. The court said the FIRs should not prejudice their rights, and should be given every opportunity to defend themselves.