World

Supreme Court Quashes FIRs Against NEET Protesters, CJP Cancels March

The CJP announced the cancellation of a protest after the Supreme Court quashed FIRs filed against NEET paper leak protesters, following government assurances.

1 September 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Supreme Court Quashes FIRs Against NEET Protesters, CJP Cancels March — Archive photoPhoto: Centre of Indian Trade Unions · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY 4.0

The Supreme Court has quashed all First Information Reports (FIRs) against protesters involved in the NEET paper leak agitation, responding to a request from the government. This decision was a key factor in the cancellation of a planned protest march by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) on September 5, 2026.

The protests, which began at Jantar Mantar in June, were primarily focused on alleged irregularities in the NEET examination process. Activist Sonam Wangchuk participated in these demonstrations, advocating for the rights of students affected by the situation.

The government had provided assurances that students participating in the protests would not face targeting or harassment because of their involvement. CJP co-convenor Saurav Das stated that the decision to call off the protest was made in light of these assurances.

The withdrawal of the September 5 march was formally announced after discussions with the Centre, which included demands for the withdrawal of criminal cases against protesters. CJP leadership deemed it appropriate to halt the planned demonstration following the Supreme Court ruling.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.