Loading…
On 1 September 2026 the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIRs registered across the country against students and young people who took part in protests over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak between 20 and 25 July 2026.
The bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
Related FIRs that were not before the Court are to be treated as closed and not investigated, and no fresh FIRs may be registered in any state or Union Territory over those incidents.
One exception was carved out: Delhi Police was permitted to register a fresh FIR against 2,873 persons said to have serious criminal antecedents, for alleged bodily harm and destruction of property.
The Centre told the Court that a pan-India compensation policy for the families of students who died by suicide in connection with the paper leak was being finalised, and that payments would follow within three months.
Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and such an order is enforceable throughout the territory of India. It is an extraordinary discretionary power meant for situations in which ordinary legal remedies would be inadequate or would produce injustice through delay or fragmentation. Its limits are equally settled: it cannot be used to override substantive statutory law or to act against an express constitutional provision, and it is exercised on the specific facts of a case rather than as a general power available in every dispute. Only the Supreme Court has it - no High Court enjoys an equivalent under Article 226.
Simple Analogy: It is a master key the Court keeps for doors that ordinary keys will not open - useful precisely because it is rarely used, and useless if it were used to break down walls the law has deliberately built.
Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in a matter before it; such orders are enforceable throughout India. This is the provision used to quash the FIRs.
Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, the basis on which citizens may voice criticism and dissent.
Guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms - the second limb from which the right to protest is derived, since the Constitution nowhere lists 'protest' as a separate fundamental right.
Permit reasonable restrictions - on speech in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; and on assembly in the interests of sovereignty and integrity and of public order. The right to protest therefore does not extend to violence or destruction of property.
Held that Article 142 cannot be used to supplant substantive law or to ignore express statutory provisions - the leading statement of the power's limits.
Article 142 was used to give effect to the settlement in the Bhopal gas tragedy litigation, an early assertion of its breadth.
Nationwide student protests over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak; FIRs registered in several states
Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana constitutes a five-member High-Powered Enquiry Committee under Justice R. Subhash Reddy to probe alleged police excesses
Same bench invokes Article 142 to quash FIRs against protesters, bars fresh FIRs, and permits Delhi Police one fresh FIR against 2,873 named persons
Centre's assurance that compensation will be paid to families of students who died by suicide over the paper leak, once the pan-India policy is finalised
The Court used its constitutional powers to lay down binding guidelines for inter-country adoption where no statute governed the field - an example of Article 142 filling a legislative vacuum rather than overriding a statute.
In the absence of any law on sexual harassment at the workplace, the Court framed the Vishaka Guidelines, which held the field until Parliament enacted the 2013 Act. The same 'fill the gap, do not contradict the statute' logic applies.
Because the right to protest is inferred from Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) rather than expressly enumerated, remedies for its chilling by mass FIRs often come through the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction rather than a dedicated statutory route.
Article 141 makes Supreme Court law binding on all courts in India and Article 144 requires all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court - together these give an Article 142 order its nationwide reach.
GS Paper II > Structure and functioning of the judiciary; Fundamental Rights; Separation of powers
General Awareness > Indian Polity: Constitutional articles and landmark judgments
With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
Answer: The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?
Answer: The Supreme Court of India
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements: 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid. 2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer: Neither 1 nor 2
Which article of the Constitution guarantees 'Equality before Law'?
Answer: Article 14
The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its
Answer: original jurisdiction
The standard in Article 142 permitting the Supreme Court to pass orders that ordinary remedies cannot deliver, applied to the facts of the case before it
A judicial order terminating a criminal case at or before the investigation stage, so that it cannot be pursued further
Limits on fundamental freedoms permitted by Articles 19(2) to 19(6) on specified grounds such as public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India
A person's record of prior criminal cases or convictions, cited here as the basis for the exception the Court allowed
The five-member fact-finding body the Supreme Court set up in August 2026, chaired by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, to examine alleged police excesses during the protests