SC's red line on protest FIRs puts Centre & CJP at odds: Is there a way out? 3 options explained

 

The conflict between the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and the Centre over FIRs filed during the recent NEET paper-leak protests centers around a crucial distinction drawn by the Supreme Court of India:

• The Supreme Court's "Red Line": The Supreme Court directed the immediate release of and protection from coercive action for minors and first-time protesters without criminal antecedents. However, the Apex Court allowed investigations and legal proceedings to continue against individuals with prior criminal histories or those involved in acts of violence.

• The Stand-Off:

  • CJP's Position: Demands a complete, blanket withdrawal of all FIRs registered against all protesters and volunteers across all states, alleging a breach of agreement by the government.

    
    

  • Centre's Position: Relies on the SC's directive to maintain that while peaceful student protesters will not face coercive action, cases involving individuals with criminal antecedents or serious charges of violence against police personnel will proceed under regular investigation.

3 Legal & Administrative Options Explained

Option 1: State-by-State Withdrawal under Section 321 CrPC / Section 360 BNSS

• Mechanism: Public Prosecutors in respective states (Delhi, Bihar, Bengal, etc.) can move applications before trial courts under criminal procedure rules to withdraw prosecutions in the "public interest."

• Scope & Limitation: The Centre can request state governments to drop charges against peaceful student volunteers. However, trial courts retain the power to reject withdrawals for serious offences or violent acts, ensuring alignment with the Supreme Court’s ruling against shielding individuals facing grave criminal charges.

  
  
  

Option 2: Formation of a High-Powered Review Committee

• Mechanism: The Centre and relevant State Governments can establish a joint High-Powered Committee comprising judicial officers, police chiefs, and legal representatives to screen FIRs individually.

• Scope & Limitation: The committee can categorize cases into two buckets:

  1. Category A (Minor offences / Unlawful Assembly): Recommended for quashing or summary closure.

  2. Category B (Serious Vandalism / Violence): Allowed to run standard judicial trial.

• Outcome: This gives CJP relief for genuine student activists while keeping the legal process intact for cases involving violence.

  
  
  

Option 3: Court-Monitored Independent Investigation / Quashing Pleas

• Mechanism: Protesters or the CJP can approach High Courts or the Supreme Court under Section 482 CrPC (or equivalent provision under BNSS) for quashing FIRs that lack specific allegations.

• Scope & Limitation: Since the Supreme Court has already ordered an independent and impartial probe into allegations of police action as well as protest violence, the Court itself can oversee the final determination of which FIRs merit quashing vs. charge-sheeting.

CJP Protest Crackdown: SC orders Immediate Release of Students Without Criminal Record

This report covers the Supreme Court's order directing the release of first-time student protesters and the ongoing legal developments regarding the Jantar Mantar protest FIRs.

The legal and political standoff over the First Information Reports filed against student protesters who took part in the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) agitation escalated dramatically on Tuesday as the Supreme Court (SC) said that the FIRs that were already registered can be probed. The Centre, meanwhile, showed its willingness to keep its promise, with multiple states withdrawing FIRs against CJP protesters. The demonstrations were sparked by alleged NEET-UG 2026 examination irregularities and led to a severe police crackdown on July 20, 2026.

CJP, SC and Centre, where do they stand on the issue? Is there a way out? News18 explains.

WHERE THE SC STANDS

A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant intervened with crucial interim orders.

The Supreme Court stated that the States may proceed with the investigation in the FIRs registered.

However, it halted all coercive action against protesters across all states. This applies strictly to individuals without a criminal background. The Court directed all states to immediately release children under 18 who were arrested or detained during the agitation.

The SC explicitly stated that the right to peaceful protest is a guaranteed constitutional right under Article 19. A “mere agitation” cannot justify excessive police force or immediate lathi charges. The Bench is considering setting up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or high-powered committee to look into police excesses, emphasizing that accountability must be fixed “up the ladder”. The police must preserve all CCTV, drone, and body-camera footage and ensure that the digital or personal data of protesters is not leaked to the public domain.

WHERE THE COCKROACH JANTA PARTY (CJP) STANDS

The CJP initially suspended its 36-day agitation on July 25 following the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, but they have since renewed their agitation warnings.

CJP spokesperson Saurav Das stated that the Supreme Court’s conditions are “unacceptable”. The CJP expects a complete, unconditional withdrawal of all FIRs against both protesters and organizers, rather than a selective case-by-case investigation.

Backed by senior legal figures like Kapil Sibal, the CJP has given the Centre an ultimatum to deliver a formal written agreement quashing all cases nationwide, failing which they will launch a massive fresh wave of sit-in protests.

WHERE THE GOVERNMENT STANDS

The Central Government is caught between de-escalating the student unrest and maintaining law-enforcement morale.

Top government representatives, including Union Minister JP Nadda, publicly stated that the government has agreed to withdraw existing FIRs and will not register fresh cases linked to the peaceful agitation. States like Bihar and Assam have already shared initial notifications to that effect.

Representing the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that anti-social elements and individuals with serious criminal records (such as narcotics or assault charges) infiltrated the student movement.

The government maintains that unruly mobs injured many police personnel and damaged public property. The State claims it cannot take blanket actions that would completely demoralise the police force.

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Tuesday directed the Home Department to withdraw cases registered against students who took part in protests, making Maharashtra the latest state to roll back legal action against demonstrators. The move comes after Bihar and Assam announced similar decisions to withdraw cases filed against protesters.

IS THERE A WAY OUT?

1. Executive Withdrawal of Cases (Section 321 of CrPC / Section 360 of BNSS):

While the police can investigate FIRs per the Supreme Court’s order, the executive branch (the government) holds the ultimate authority to drop criminal prosecutions.

The government can instruct the Public Prosecutor to file an application under the criminal procedure code to formally withdraw from the prosecution of these cases.

However, this requires the explicit permission of the local trial court where the cases are active. The court must be satisfied that the withdrawal is in the interest of public justice, peace, and order.

2. Legal Quashing of FIRs by High Courts

Protesters named in the FIRs do not have to wait for a protracted trial or a government decree. They can directly approach their respective High Courts to secure a clean legal exit.

Under Section 482 of the CrPC (or the corresponding section under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), individuals can file a petition to quash the FIRs.

Share:

Read More

One officer, one car: Modi government issues big order on official convoys, no second vehicle for officials with...

 

New Delhi: The Modi government has implemented the "One Officer, One Official Car" policy for the bureaucracy. The idea is to curb the misuse of government vehicles and reduce public expenditure. As per the new Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Expenditure under the Ministry of Finance, an officer who has already been allotted an official vehicle will not be provided with a second government car, even if they are assigned additional responsibilities.

This move is aimed at ensuring more efficient use of government resources and cutting unnecessary spending. As per the Ministry of Finance, even if an officer is given additional charge of another ministry, department, public sector undertaking (PSU), or autonomous body, they will not be allotted a second official vehicle. In other words, each entitled officer will be assigned only one official government car.

The government has directed all central ministries and departments to strictly implement the new policy. It has also instructed that unused government vehicles be parked in designated locations and not be used unnecessarily.

What's new in the order?

The order also makes it clear that central government officers will not be allowed to use vehicles belonging to PSUs, autonomous bodies, or quasi-government organizations. However, an exception has been made for official visits, allowing officers to use such vehicles when they are at the concerned organization for government work.

The Department of Expenditure stated that the order has been issued to strengthen the implementation of the guidelines released in September 2022. The new Office Memorandum has been circulated to all central ministries and departments to ensure uniform implementation across the Central Government's administrative framework.

Why has the government introduced this policy?

According to the government, the objective is to ensure the prudent use of public resources, prevent the allocation of multiple official vehicles to a single officer, and make the administrative system more transparent and efficient. The policy is expected to eliminate unnecessary duplication of government vehicles, reduce fuel and maintenance costs, and ensure better utilization of public funds.

The Central Government believes that the "One Entitled Officer, One Official Car" policy is a significant step toward better management of government resources. It is expected to curb the misuse of official vehicles while strengthening administrative accountability and financial discipline.

The recent directive issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) enforces the "One Entitled Officer, One Official Car" policy.

Key Details of the New Directive

• No Second Car for Additional Charge: Senior officers and bureaucrats who already have an allotted official staff car cannot be allotted a second government vehicle, even if they are given additional charge of another ministry, department, Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), or autonomous body.

• Bar on PSU & Autonomous Body Vehicles: Central government officers are strictly prohibited from using vehicles belonging to PSUs, autonomous bodies, or quasi-government entities unless they are actively attending official duties or on an authorized tour at those specific organizations.

• Custody of Unused Vehicles: Ministries and departments have been instructed to place surplus or unused vehicles in safe custody to prevent their unofficial deployment or misuse.

  
  
  

• Strict Fuel and Usage Limits: The directive reinforces standard monthly caps on fuel usage (typically 250 liters/month per staff car) and mandates clear accountability for any extra usage.

Objectives Behind the Decision

• Eliminate Duplication: Prevents senior officials from holding multi-vehicle fleets across different portfolios.

• Curb Misuse & Public Spending: Aims to significantly reduce government expenditure on fuel, maintenance, and vehicle procurement.

• Enforce Fiscal Discipline: Strengthens administrative efficiency and accountability across all central Union ministries.

• 
  

Share:

Read More

Positive breakout: These 9 stocks cross above their 200 DMAs

 

In the NSE list of stocks with a market cap over Rs 10,000 crore, nine stocks' closing prices crossed above their 200 DMA (Daily Moving Averages) on July 17, 2026, according to stockedge.com's technical scan data. Traders use the 200-day daily moving average (DMA) as a key indicator for determining the overall trend in a particular stock. As long as the stock is priced above the 200-day SMA on the daily timeframe, it is generally considered to be in an overall uptrend. Take a look:​

Based on technical scan data (for NSE-listed companies with a market capitalization over ₹10,000 crore), here are the 9 stocks whose closing prices recently crossed above their 200-day Daily Moving Average (200 DMA):

Stocks Crossing Above 200 DMA

#	Stock Name	200 DMA (₹)	Last Traded Price (LTP) (₹)
1	Relaxo Footwears	366.99	439.95
2	Authum Investment & Infrastructure	528.99	571.00
3	eClerx Services	1,868.29	1,979.80
4	DLF	649.31	667.80
5	The India Cements	404.22	410.30
6	ZF Commercial Vehicle Control Systems India	2,375.48	2,410.30
7	360 ONE WAM	1,101.16	1,113.70
8	TVS Motor Company	3,582.69	3,618.20
9	Power Finance Corporation (PFC)	403.19	404.85

What Does This Technical Signal Mean?

• Trend Reversal Indicator: The 200-day Simple Moving Average (SMA/DMA) is widely watched by traders and institutional investors to gauge long-term market trends.

  
  
  

• Bullish Shift: Crossing above the 200 DMA indicates that buying momentum is gaining strength, often marking a transition from a sideways or bearish phase into a broader long-term uptrend.

  
  
  

Share:

Read More

When Sonam Wangchuk's father went on a hunger strike, PM Indira Gandhi flew to Leh. Here's what he wanted

 

As climate activist Sonam Wangchuk continues his indefinite hunger strike, memories of a four-decade-old episode involving his father, late Ladakhi leader Sonam Wangyal, resurfaced on Friday.

According to historical accounts, Wangyal launched an indefinite hunger strike in 1984 demanding Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for Ladakh's communities. 

Then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi travelled to Leh, assured him that the demand would be addressed, and persuaded him to end his fast. Ladakh's communities were eventually granted ST status in 1989.

Comparisons have gained momentum on social media, where photographs of Indira Gandhi meeting Wangyal during the hunger strike are widely circulated. The posts drew parallels between the Centre's response to Wangchuk's ongoing protest and the Centre's response to the protests in Delhi.

Wangchuk joined the Cockroach Janta Party-led protest on June 28. On Saturday, on the 21st day of his hunger strike, the Delhi Police shifted Wangchuk to Safdarjung Hospital, citing health reasons. 

Don't Miss: Sonam Wangchuk will end fast tomorrow if leaders promise education debate in Parliament: Wife 

Congress Recalls 1984 Episode

The historical parallel also resonated within the Congress.

Related video: 'This government cannot make India Vishwaguru…', says activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife (The Economic Times)

View on Watch

The Economic Times

'This government cannot make India Vishwaguru…', says activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife

They are not handling it in a statesmanly manner.

Current Time 0:02

/

Duration 1:41

0

News agency PTI, citing party sources, reported that former Congress President Sonia Gandhi told a senior leader that they should meet Wangchuk at the protest site and referred to the 1984 episode.

Sonia Gandhi cited Indira Gandhi's decision to travel to Leh and engage directly with Wangyal as an example of how governments should respond to peaceful democratic protests. 

Last Thursday, Congress General Secretary K C Venugopal appealed to Wangchuk to end his fast, while party leader Pawan Khera visited him at Jantar Mantar on Friday.

After the meeting, Khera said peaceful protest was a constitutional right, and governments had a duty to engage with those on a fast. "That is what Indira Gandhi ji did in 1984. That is what Dr Manmohan Singh's government did in 2011,"

Wangchuk joined the Cockroach Janta Party's protest at Jantar Mantar on June 28. The outfit's agitation, centred on alleged examination irregularities and a demand for the Union education minister's resignation, entered its 28th day on Friday.

In 1984, climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s father—Sonam Wangyal, a prominent Ladakhi politician and former minister in the Jammu & Kashmir government—undertook a 5-day indefinite hunger strike in Leh.

Here is what he wanted, what happened, and how it turned out:

What He Wanted

• Scheduled Tribe (ST) Status for Ladakh: Wangyal demanded that the indigenous communities of Ladakh be granted official Scheduled Tribe (ST) status under the Indian Constitution.

• Protections & Reservations: The goal was to secure constitutional safeguards for Ladakh’s distinct cultural identity, land rights, educational reservations, and government employment opportunities for local youth.

Indira Gandhi’s Visit & The Outcome

1. Direct Personal Engagement: Recognizing the sensitivity of the region and the growing public support in Leh, then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi flew directly to Leh to engage with Wangyal personally.

2. Ending the Fast: She offered her personal assurance that the Union government would address the demand, persuading Wangyal to break his fast with a soft drink.

3. The Result: Five years later, in 1989, the Central government officially issued the constitutional order granting Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to eight major tribal communities in Ladakh.

Share:

Read More

Anna Hazare's appeal to Centre, urges them to say yes or no to his demands

 

Activist Anna Hazare on Saturday said the Union government should hold talks with educationist Sonam Wangchuk. "The government should not test his limits. Say yes or no (to his demands), but what is wrong in holding discussions," Hazare said in a video message.

Wangchuk has been demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET paper leak scandal. He was shifted to a government hospital by Delhi Police on Saturday after his health deteriorated on the 21st day of his indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar.

Notably, Hazare's hunger strike in Delhi for the Lokpal Act had rocked the UPA government in 2011.

Sonam Wangchuk's hunger strike

Environment activist and educationalist Sonam Wangchuk has been on a hunger strike for 20 days demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged nationwide examination irregularities, including the NEET paper leak controversy.

Earlier today, the Delhi Police said Wangchuk was shifted to the Safdarjung Hospital from the Jantar Mantar protest site in compliance with the Delhi High Court's directions and on medical advice due to his deteriorating health. Police officials said maximum restraint was exercised during the operation.

However, Safdarjung Hospital staff Dr Nitin Dighe raised "suspicion" on the medical reports released by the Safdarjung Hospital indicating a potassium deficiency, arguing that he had taken Wangchuk's blood sample at 3 pm on Friday, which showcased a normal potassium value.

Also Read | Sonam Wangchuk Hunger Strike: Rahul Gandhi slams activist's removal from Jantar Mantar, calls it 'wrong'

The hospital is not providing the medical reports of Wangchuk, Dr Dighe told ANI, adding he will be collecting his blood sample for a report, which will be presented to the media. "My team and I have been doing his checkups for the past 20 days. His advocates and we have not been allowed to meet him so far. His wife is here, and they are allowing her. I asked them why they have kept him here, and we were told that he is showing potassium deficiency. I had taken his blood sample at 3 pm yesterday, and potassium was normal at that time. It was 4.8, higher than the normal value of 3.5. Now, they are saying the value has dropped. When his wife is asking for a report, they are not giving one to her. This is suspicious, so I am collecting his blood and taking it for a report. I will present the report to you," he said.

Related video: Wangchuk writes letter from hospital, calls Parliament march India's 'second freedom movement' (Times Now)

View on Watch

Times Now

Wangchuk writes letter from hospital, calls Parliament march India's 'second freedom movement'

Sonam Wangchu through his wife Geetanjali has released a hand

Current Time 0:01

/

Duration 4:51

0

The CJP protesters at Jantar Mantar alleged that the police personnel arrived at the site and claimed to be a medical team. They ordered the volunteers to move aside, a protester was quoted as saying by ANI. Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) chief spokesperson Saurav Das alleged that the Delhi Police had misinterpreted the Delhi High Court's directions while shifting Sonam Wangchuk to hospital and termed his detention a contempt of court.

"The Delhi High Court directed that the health of Sonam Wangchuk should be monitored and any intervention should only take place if his health deteriorates. His health is monitored by our medical team 2-3 times a day, and he himself posts videos on a daily basis giving updates about his health, which has been stable. The Delhi police has misinterpreted that court order and in the guise of that order, detained him. The detention is a contempt of court's order," Das said.

Veteran social activist Anna Hazare issued a direct appeal to the Union government, urging them to immediately open a line of communication regarding the ongoing protests led by educationist Sonam Wangchuk.

In a video message shared from Maharashtra, Hazare stated, “The government should not test his limits. Say yes or no (to his demands), but what is wrong in holding discussions?”

The Context Behind the Appeal

• Sonam Wangchuk’s Hunger Strike: Climate activist and educationist Sonam Wangchuk has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Delhi's Jantar Mantar. He is demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan following the widespread row over the NEET paper leak scandal.

• Police Intervention: On the 21st day of his fast, Delhi Police forcefully removed Wangchuk from the protest site and shifted him to a government hospital. While authorities stated the move was to monitor his health under High Court directions, the action drew sharp criticism from opposition leaders and civil rights groups.

  
  
  

• Hazare's Stance: Recalling his own historic 2011 anti-corruption fasts that shook the political landscape, Hazare emphasized that democratic governments should actively dialogue with peaceful protestors rather than ignoring them or escalating tensions.

Hazare's intervention places renewed public pressure on the Centre to officially address the ongoing student grievances and paper leak allegations.

Share:

Read More