SC uses special powers to cancel FIRs against protesters, CJP praises historic move

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking restrictions on public processions and demonstrations in Lutyens’ Delhi, particularly around key locations such as India Gate and the Central Vista. The request comes amid preparations for a planned protest march by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) on September 5, which aims to highlight grievances related to the cancellation of the NEET medical entrance exam and the subsequent re-test. The CJP claims the central government has failed to uphold commitments made on July 25, when the group ended its 36-day agitation over alleged examination irregularities. The petition, filed by retired Delhi Police officer Rajendra Singh, argues that large-scale mobilisations in security-sensitive areas must be preceded by proper police authorisation. It also requests that any proposed gatherings in Lutyens’ Delhi be postponed or altered until after the BRICS Summit, set for September 12–13. The plea further asserts that no procession should exceed the boundaries permitted by official regulations unless explicitly sanctioned. The Supreme Court, however, has so far declined to impose a ban on the CJP’s planned protest. In a hearing on August 31, 2026, a bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana stated that there was no justification to assume the demonstration would result in unrest. The court emphasized that maintaining law and order was the responsibility of the government and police, urging all parties to adhere to legal frameworks and act responsibly. The CJP’s proposed march, scheduled for Teachers’ Day, is intended to be led by families of students who took their lives following the NEET cancellation and those affected by alleged police misconduct during the July protests. Despite the CJP announcing the march, Delhi Police reportedly had not yet received a formal request for a procession from India Gate to the Delhi Police headquarters. During the court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Rizwan Ahmad, raised concerns about the potential for disorder, noting that the CJP had previously announced a similar march without police clearance. He warned that any incident during the September 5 demonstration could draw international scrutiny, especially with the BRICS Summit approaching. The court, however, maintained that it would not intervene in matters of law and order unless there was a clear legal issue requiring adjudication. The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities if any alarming developments occurred. It also indicated that the case would be revisited on September 10, alongside other pending matters related to the student protests. The court’s stance reflects a balance between upholding citizens’ right to protest and ensuring that such actions remain peaceful and lawful. The CJP, through its spokesperson Saurav Das, has described the September 5 demonstration as a peaceful effort to hold the government accountable for unfulfilled promises. The party has accused the administration of betrayal and pledged to continue advocating for justice for the affected students and their families. The Supreme Court’s refusal to preemptively restrict the march underscores its trust in the ability of law enforcement to manage public gatherings effectively. At the same time, it leaves room for future legal action should unforeseen circumstances arise. The outcome of the September 5 protest will depend largely on how both the CJP and the authorities navigate the challenges of maintaining order while respecting democratic freedoms. The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for September 10, indicating that the matter will remain under review. Until then, the focus remains on ensuring that the protest, if it proceeds, adheres to legal standards and does not escalate into conflict. The situation highlights the ongoing tension between civil liberties and public safety, a delicate balance that continues to shape India’s political landscape.